28 feb was the filmfare award nite. though it was not telecast live i kept tab on news channels to report the results. but the news was slow and only the minor awards were announced till midnight when i decided to update on sunday morning.and there ! as i opened the folds of Toi to my disappointment i saw the beaming victorious posture of priyanka chopra ( the way boxers do ). she had won the the best actress trophy for 'fashion 'defeating the deserving Aishvarya Rai.The other upsets were -- 'rock on' winning six awards and 'a wednesday'not winning a single award.
Filmfare are the oldest film awards and therefore has history to boast. over the years film awards such as 'screen ' 'zee ' stardust' have been launched but they too have followed the same pattern . even the national awards are known to be partial and political.
past memories of filmfare's partisan attitude come rushing fore; 'Sachin da' not getting award for 'guide'. Sohan lal kanwar's 'beiman' winning seven filmfare awards.That is why Aamir khan does not attend award function and Dharmendra pore his heart out on being ignored for years when he received the Life time achievement award from Dilip and Saira.Shahrukh stating that he had even brought cash to ensure that he gets awarded for Baazigar; on receiving the trophy.It is no secret that certain groups and camps manipulate and influence Filmfare awards.in the past yashraj films, dharma productions and certain influential superstars have swept the awards leaving many deserving speechless.with 'rock on ' on roll the Akhtar clan has made its presence known in field other than cinema!
the elimination of 'a wednesday ' will remain a matter of discussions for long time, but crowing of shri farhan akhtar as the most promising new comer needs to be rebutted immediately. we must know that people liked 'rock on ' not for the performace of farhan but the manner in which the story was unfolded, for characterization and acting of all actors. farhan too was good but he certainly does not deserve the award. similarly in the role of Jodha Aisvarya was regal to the toe an unexpected great performance, which should have handed the award to her hands down; it was a challenging role. priyanka acted well in a author backed role ;but fell short.
filmfare need to to rework their jury structure ; perhaps make it more broad based; but such blunders will not redeem its notorious past.
शनिवार, 28 फ़रवरी 2009
शनिवार, 21 फ़रवरी 2009
DELHI 6 - PLEASING SECULAR SERMON
Delhi is one of the most ancient cities of the world. Destroyed by external and internal social and political conflicts many times. But; rose to prominence with its dominant spirit of tolerance and brotherhood restored. The majority ideology of inclusion prevailed upon exclusion.
Recent history of 200 years has witnessed social clashes/ persecution/killing involving christians v/s hindu/muslim combine in 1857, hindus v/s muslims in 1947 and hindus v/s sikhs in 1984. Finally,extremism subsided and sanity prevailed.
The chandni chowk ( Delhi 6 )area of old Delhi has had close neighbourhood of hindus /muslims/sikhs living together for many years. Life usually remains normal but occasionally fundamentalists/ politicians with narrow interest provoke people and then the devil in them ( us ) rises like the 'black monkey ' and engulfs all.
Rakesh Mehra has attempted to emphasise on secularism through the journey of his main protagonist Roshan Mehra from America to Delhi's chandni chowk. Son of a hindu father and muslim mother from chandni chowk he is at home in both cultures.He meets friends of his parents, witnesses Ramlila,attends collective namaaz at jama masjid confronts the local police havaldar and is shocked at police atrocities. Also at religious superstition, being American his outspoken and casual nature is resented by some. He plays main role in cementing many a cracked relationship and gets rooted himself after finding love with the neighbours daughter Bittu; after ofcourse Baptism by Blood and near death.Chandni chowk social collage presented by the writer- director is sweetly composed with imagination, realism and experience. There is suave and cultured Beg ( rishi kapoor ) childhood friend of Roshan's father,dumb and loving 'Gobar'( atul kulkarni) the domestic help,affectionate and impulsive ' Mangu'( dobriyal)the halwai,vulgar yet comical 'police walla'( vijay raaj),ambitious and vibrant Bittu ( sonam kappor )and her conservative father ( om puri), cunning and calculative 'lalaji'accompanied by his newly acquired young and 'smart' wife. Pawan malhotra as brother of om puri who stays in the partitioned house with his family and converses indirectly with his elder brother comes out convincingly as a typical punjabi shopkeeper.Divya dutta the sweepress is saucy and golden hearted. one is reminded of the famous tele serial ' Nukkad ' which showcased life of a mohalla and harmonious relationship among people from differnt trades and background.There are shades of 'Jagte raho' the famous Raj kapoor film of a poor villager who in search of water bumps into the inhabitants of the building many of whom are guilty of small and serious crimes but combine their attention to catch the thief who they mistake for Raj kapoor.Not realizing the 'thief ' in themselves; similarly in delhi 6 the residents resolve to catch the ' black monkey'the intruder but are unaware of the 'black monkey ' within themselves- the devil of communalism.
Rakeyesh Mehra ; the director has honorable intentions of making a socially relevant cinema but somehow the seriousness seems diluted with the introduction of the 'monkey business'.The semi horror-comical track does not blend with serious subject.
However despite its flaws; i applaud the courage of film maker that at least he belongs to a different league and not to the routine reelmakers.In times of social in the tensions and cross border terrorism he has propagated lesson of harmony by showing that not only in delhi's chandni chowk but in so many indian towns and villages hindus and muslims have been living in harmony by involving themselves in secular activities.
There is hope for India as long as the two social currents of hindus and muslim aspirations mingles in the narrow secular lanes of chandni chowk .
A pleasing secular sermon.
Recent history of 200 years has witnessed social clashes/ persecution/killing involving christians v/s hindu/muslim combine in 1857, hindus v/s muslims in 1947 and hindus v/s sikhs in 1984. Finally,extremism subsided and sanity prevailed.
The chandni chowk ( Delhi 6 )area of old Delhi has had close neighbourhood of hindus /muslims/sikhs living together for many years. Life usually remains normal but occasionally fundamentalists/ politicians with narrow interest provoke people and then the devil in them ( us ) rises like the 'black monkey ' and engulfs all.
Rakesh Mehra has attempted to emphasise on secularism through the journey of his main protagonist Roshan Mehra from America to Delhi's chandni chowk. Son of a hindu father and muslim mother from chandni chowk he is at home in both cultures.He meets friends of his parents, witnesses Ramlila,attends collective namaaz at jama masjid confronts the local police havaldar and is shocked at police atrocities. Also at religious superstition, being American his outspoken and casual nature is resented by some. He plays main role in cementing many a cracked relationship and gets rooted himself after finding love with the neighbours daughter Bittu; after ofcourse Baptism by Blood and near death.Chandni chowk social collage presented by the writer- director is sweetly composed with imagination, realism and experience. There is suave and cultured Beg ( rishi kapoor ) childhood friend of Roshan's father,dumb and loving 'Gobar'( atul kulkarni) the domestic help,affectionate and impulsive ' Mangu'( dobriyal)the halwai,vulgar yet comical 'police walla'( vijay raaj),ambitious and vibrant Bittu ( sonam kappor )and her conservative father ( om puri), cunning and calculative 'lalaji'accompanied by his newly acquired young and 'smart' wife. Pawan malhotra as brother of om puri who stays in the partitioned house with his family and converses indirectly with his elder brother comes out convincingly as a typical punjabi shopkeeper.Divya dutta the sweepress is saucy and golden hearted. one is reminded of the famous tele serial ' Nukkad ' which showcased life of a mohalla and harmonious relationship among people from differnt trades and background.There are shades of 'Jagte raho' the famous Raj kapoor film of a poor villager who in search of water bumps into the inhabitants of the building many of whom are guilty of small and serious crimes but combine their attention to catch the thief who they mistake for Raj kapoor.Not realizing the 'thief ' in themselves; similarly in delhi 6 the residents resolve to catch the ' black monkey'the intruder but are unaware of the 'black monkey ' within themselves- the devil of communalism.
Rakeyesh Mehra ; the director has honorable intentions of making a socially relevant cinema but somehow the seriousness seems diluted with the introduction of the 'monkey business'.The semi horror-comical track does not blend with serious subject.
However despite its flaws; i applaud the courage of film maker that at least he belongs to a different league and not to the routine reelmakers.In times of social in the tensions and cross border terrorism he has propagated lesson of harmony by showing that not only in delhi's chandni chowk but in so many indian towns and villages hindus and muslims have been living in harmony by involving themselves in secular activities.
There is hope for India as long as the two social currents of hindus and muslim aspirations mingles in the narrow secular lanes of chandni chowk .
A pleasing secular sermon.
शुक्रवार, 20 फ़रवरी 2009
SLUMDOG MILLIONNAIRE – TIME TO CONFRONT
DANNY BOYLE AND OSCARS
Slum dog millionaire an English film directed by Danny Boyle about an Indian boy from slums! Who wins a million by answering all the questions in the television quiz contest; has been nominated for ten Oscars and has recently won seven BAFTA (British Academy ) awards. India is rejoicing as A R Rahman the music director has been nominated for music in three categorizes .The media is full of reports and updates. Mr Amitabh Bachhan in his Blog has raised objection to glorification of Indian poverty in the film. Defenders of cinematic and artistic freedom have quickly been critical of any objection being raised about the movie. During a chat show Anil Kapoor and Irfan Khan ; the two stars of the movie have been vocal in their support for Danny and Slumdog.
After having seen the movie and also read the book ‘ Question and Answer’ by Vikas Swarup on which the movie is based I am of the opinion that there is no cause to rejoice and celebrate but to confront and oppose such cinema which selectively picks up issues and elements harmful to the image of India purely for commercial purpose. Danny Boyle has only extracted those scenes and incidents from the book which are more saleable in the west – slums, rag picking, poverty, communalism, children being blinded for begging, car part theft, dhobi ghat etc. Many incidents are not even mentioned in the book such as communal riots, rag picking, car part stealing, jumping in the pool of excreta and dhobi ghat but have been added to the the script to create an impact.
I fully understand that once movie rights of a book are sold it is for the director to portray what he considers cinematically correct. It is also not possible to depict the book completely; some deletions are necessary to meet the cinematic demands. But one should not tamper with the very essence of the book and tarnish its very soul. But alas! These salesmen from the west have made a typical Bollywood movie of the 80s and 90s and twisted and turned the basic structure of the book upside down.
The book was an instant hit when it was released about two years back and was translated into many languages . It is a story of Ram Thomas Mohammad who is raised by a priest in a church and learns the fundamentals of spoken English in church surroundings of Delhi .He keeps the peculiar name as his mother had abandoned him and his actual religion was not known; he uses of his name to his advantage according to the situation The boy is about 18 when he wins the quiz contest and in order to prove that he knows the answer to the questions from his life experience he narrates his story to his lawyer. During the 18 years of his life he stays in Mumbai chawls, as domestic help he stays in the flat of a female fading star where he sees Prem the host of quiz show.He is also a cook in a contract killer’s flat who is also part of the cricket batting mafia. He spends time in Agra as guide at Taj Mahal where he meets the girl who becomes his wife and for whom he participates in the quiz show. He escapes narrowly along with his friend Salim from the clutches of gangsters who handicap children for begging. There is confrontation with a gang of dacoits in a train and life with an Australian Defense Attache who turns out to be a spy and is deported
However; what could have been an interesting story of a poor boy; his escapades and adventures and who wins a Contest; Danny Boyle has made into a typical average film.The book is of two friends Salim and Ram Thomas Mohammad and how Salim fulfils his dream to be a film star and Ram accidentally wins the quiz show; but the basic plot has been changed to that of sibling conflict,gangster moll and captivation.. A routine Bollywood Saga.. whereas the hero stays in slums in the later part of his life he is shown in the film being raised in the slums by his mother with his brother Salim and the mother is killed in a communal riot.The blinding scene which has been graphically portrayed is only mentioned in the book as mere contemplation on knowing which the children escape.
The communal angle is the creative input of the screen writer in the film to provoke the western mind. The most repulsive scene is where jamal jumps in the pool of human excreta in order to obtain the autograph of his Star –Amitabh Bachhan . The scene has no connection to the book, it is shown to shock the western audience. The book depicts poverty, betrayal, cowardice, homosexuality, greed, inhumanity and other human aberrations and fallacies but Danny Boyle has deleted portions which would have embarrassed the West- homosexuality and drug abuse by a christian priest , deportation on charges of spying of an Australian defense attaché.
It is also a case of bad casting. The protagonist – Jamal, enacted by Dev Patel does not look like a boy from slums but a well bred lad with western accent whereas the actors playing his childhood and early boyhood are convincing he himself is misfit.
It is indeed sad that Anil Kappor and Irfan Khan who should have advised the director to delete the ‘ shit scene ‘ are justifying his acts. It is classic example of servility under which this nation has suffered in the past. Could not these gentlemen prevail upon the makers to make amends during the trial show? So pleased they appear in the reflected glory that they are oblivious that at what cost will be the Oscars.
And finally the question of the Oscars? Does it deserve the oscar?At what cost? The answer is no. It is an average film based on a beautiful book with refreshing scenarios which has been betrayed by the film maker for commercial reasons.
An Artist has no nation, he is not for a certain section but for the entire world; the humanity. By exploiting the sentiments of Indian humanity Danny Boyle has betrayed the entire humanity.
It is time to confront Danny Boyle and Oscars for promoting mediocrity.
By Himanshu
DANNY BOYLE AND OSCARS
Slum dog millionaire an English film directed by Danny Boyle about an Indian boy from slums! Who wins a million by answering all the questions in the television quiz contest; has been nominated for ten Oscars and has recently won seven BAFTA (British Academy ) awards. India is rejoicing as A R Rahman the music director has been nominated for music in three categorizes .The media is full of reports and updates. Mr Amitabh Bachhan in his Blog has raised objection to glorification of Indian poverty in the film. Defenders of cinematic and artistic freedom have quickly been critical of any objection being raised about the movie. During a chat show Anil Kapoor and Irfan Khan ; the two stars of the movie have been vocal in their support for Danny and Slumdog.
After having seen the movie and also read the book ‘ Question and Answer’ by Vikas Swarup on which the movie is based I am of the opinion that there is no cause to rejoice and celebrate but to confront and oppose such cinema which selectively picks up issues and elements harmful to the image of India purely for commercial purpose. Danny Boyle has only extracted those scenes and incidents from the book which are more saleable in the west – slums, rag picking, poverty, communalism, children being blinded for begging, car part theft, dhobi ghat etc. Many incidents are not even mentioned in the book such as communal riots, rag picking, car part stealing, jumping in the pool of excreta and dhobi ghat but have been added to the the script to create an impact.
I fully understand that once movie rights of a book are sold it is for the director to portray what he considers cinematically correct. It is also not possible to depict the book completely; some deletions are necessary to meet the cinematic demands. But one should not tamper with the very essence of the book and tarnish its very soul. But alas! These salesmen from the west have made a typical Bollywood movie of the 80s and 90s and twisted and turned the basic structure of the book upside down.
The book was an instant hit when it was released about two years back and was translated into many languages . It is a story of Ram Thomas Mohammad who is raised by a priest in a church and learns the fundamentals of spoken English in church surroundings of Delhi .He keeps the peculiar name as his mother had abandoned him and his actual religion was not known; he uses of his name to his advantage according to the situation The boy is about 18 when he wins the quiz contest and in order to prove that he knows the answer to the questions from his life experience he narrates his story to his lawyer. During the 18 years of his life he stays in Mumbai chawls, as domestic help he stays in the flat of a female fading star where he sees Prem the host of quiz show.He is also a cook in a contract killer’s flat who is also part of the cricket batting mafia. He spends time in Agra as guide at Taj Mahal where he meets the girl who becomes his wife and for whom he participates in the quiz show. He escapes narrowly along with his friend Salim from the clutches of gangsters who handicap children for begging. There is confrontation with a gang of dacoits in a train and life with an Australian Defense Attache who turns out to be a spy and is deported
However; what could have been an interesting story of a poor boy; his escapades and adventures and who wins a Contest; Danny Boyle has made into a typical average film.The book is of two friends Salim and Ram Thomas Mohammad and how Salim fulfils his dream to be a film star and Ram accidentally wins the quiz show; but the basic plot has been changed to that of sibling conflict,gangster moll and captivation.. A routine Bollywood Saga.. whereas the hero stays in slums in the later part of his life he is shown in the film being raised in the slums by his mother with his brother Salim and the mother is killed in a communal riot.The blinding scene which has been graphically portrayed is only mentioned in the book as mere contemplation on knowing which the children escape.
The communal angle is the creative input of the screen writer in the film to provoke the western mind. The most repulsive scene is where jamal jumps in the pool of human excreta in order to obtain the autograph of his Star –Amitabh Bachhan . The scene has no connection to the book, it is shown to shock the western audience. The book depicts poverty, betrayal, cowardice, homosexuality, greed, inhumanity and other human aberrations and fallacies but Danny Boyle has deleted portions which would have embarrassed the West- homosexuality and drug abuse by a christian priest , deportation on charges of spying of an Australian defense attaché.
It is also a case of bad casting. The protagonist – Jamal, enacted by Dev Patel does not look like a boy from slums but a well bred lad with western accent whereas the actors playing his childhood and early boyhood are convincing he himself is misfit.
It is indeed sad that Anil Kappor and Irfan Khan who should have advised the director to delete the ‘ shit scene ‘ are justifying his acts. It is classic example of servility under which this nation has suffered in the past. Could not these gentlemen prevail upon the makers to make amends during the trial show? So pleased they appear in the reflected glory that they are oblivious that at what cost will be the Oscars.
And finally the question of the Oscars? Does it deserve the oscar?At what cost? The answer is no. It is an average film based on a beautiful book with refreshing scenarios which has been betrayed by the film maker for commercial reasons.
An Artist has no nation, he is not for a certain section but for the entire world; the humanity. By exploiting the sentiments of Indian humanity Danny Boyle has betrayed the entire humanity.
It is time to confront Danny Boyle and Oscars for promoting mediocrity.
By Himanshu
BILLU - STRUCK BY SUPERSTAR
The legend of 'Krishna - Sudama ', dwells deep in our subconscious as story of friendship.It conveys that childhood friendship is true friendship and lasts for ever,that one never forgets one childhood friend even if one is rich and other poor.It invokes in us the most secular emotions of comradrie and brotherhood.
Billu; is also based on the theme of 'Krishna - Sudama ',story.How king of Dwarka never forgets his poor Brahmin friend of childhood when compelled by his economic hardship and taunting wife he musters the courage to visit him not sure if he will be remembered and recognized.On meeting Sudama Krishna weeps in joy and showers him with wealth and gifts; restoring our faith in childhood friendship.
Alas! what could have turned into a simple and sweet allegorical expression is damaged by the loud and brash treatment by Priyadarshan.
The story from Billu's angle is well presented. But; that of Samir Khan the film star who is billu's friend is marred by poor screenplay. Instead it is filled with song after song ( all mediocre item numbers ). Shah Rukh's presence in the film is that of an item number artist. The director may have injected a few scenes to convey his super star larger than life status but there is an over dose of his star charisma and exagerration of star status.
Priyadarshan should have understood that the mere presence of a star like Shahrukh is enough to portray to the audiance the gulf in the status of two friends in order to convey the conflict. But; stressing it by showing three similar group songs at short intervals the pace and mood of the film is marred. Indeed! this was one film where one wanted Irfan ( Billo ) to appear more on screen as seriousness of shahrukh toward the project becomes suspect after the item performance.
Like me the audiance too felt cheated for having been taken for song!! and also for want of cinematic sense.Did Shahrukh think that his mere presence in multiple songs would steer the film to safety and success?
Irfan's portrayal of the poor yet humouros ( reminds one of fidler on the roof )barberwho prefers to remain in anonymity and never boasts of childhood friendship with Shahrukh comes out convincingly. Though he too appears to be constrained in the starstudded atmosphere-- successful director and superstar costar.
Sitting in cinema hall one feltthat Priyadarshan may have successfully handled many ventures and maybe the original Malyalam version would have pleased the audiance but this billu seems not his forte. Perhaps; Shyam Benegal, Gulzar or even Amol Palekar would have handled better.
Irfan was expected to break into big league on the success of this film but i am afraid he has been struck by the 'superstar' whose vision it was to narrate the story the way it has been done.
Cinema too requires performance;not mere presence and pelf.
Billu; is also based on the theme of 'Krishna - Sudama ',story.How king of Dwarka never forgets his poor Brahmin friend of childhood when compelled by his economic hardship and taunting wife he musters the courage to visit him not sure if he will be remembered and recognized.On meeting Sudama Krishna weeps in joy and showers him with wealth and gifts; restoring our faith in childhood friendship.
Alas! what could have turned into a simple and sweet allegorical expression is damaged by the loud and brash treatment by Priyadarshan.
The story from Billu's angle is well presented. But; that of Samir Khan the film star who is billu's friend is marred by poor screenplay. Instead it is filled with song after song ( all mediocre item numbers ). Shah Rukh's presence in the film is that of an item number artist. The director may have injected a few scenes to convey his super star larger than life status but there is an over dose of his star charisma and exagerration of star status.
Priyadarshan should have understood that the mere presence of a star like Shahrukh is enough to portray to the audiance the gulf in the status of two friends in order to convey the conflict. But; stressing it by showing three similar group songs at short intervals the pace and mood of the film is marred. Indeed! this was one film where one wanted Irfan ( Billo ) to appear more on screen as seriousness of shahrukh toward the project becomes suspect after the item performance.
Like me the audiance too felt cheated for having been taken for song!! and also for want of cinematic sense.Did Shahrukh think that his mere presence in multiple songs would steer the film to safety and success?
Irfan's portrayal of the poor yet humouros ( reminds one of fidler on the roof )barberwho prefers to remain in anonymity and never boasts of childhood friendship with Shahrukh comes out convincingly. Though he too appears to be constrained in the starstudded atmosphere-- successful director and superstar costar.
Sitting in cinema hall one feltthat Priyadarshan may have successfully handled many ventures and maybe the original Malyalam version would have pleased the audiance but this billu seems not his forte. Perhaps; Shyam Benegal, Gulzar or even Amol Palekar would have handled better.
Irfan was expected to break into big league on the success of this film but i am afraid he has been struck by the 'superstar' whose vision it was to narrate the story the way it has been done.
Cinema too requires performance;not mere presence and pelf.
मंगलवार, 17 फ़रवरी 2009
DEV D- EXPERIMENTING WITH DEVDAS
Anurag Kashyap's Dev D is an attempt to demystify the legendry Devdas immortalized on screen by stalwarts like P C Barua ( K L Sehgal as Devdas ) , Bimal Roy ( Dilip Kumar ) and Sanjay Leela Bansali ( Shah Rukh Khan ). The traditional Devdas were set in Bengal whereas Dev D has the backdrop of the Punjab. Is it to justify the extrovert character of its main protagonists?The three main players- Dev D ( Dev ), Paramjeet ( Paro ) and Chandramukhi ( Chanda ); also Chunnilal , the pimp are all grey and victim of personal inadequacies . The old Devdas was a poignant story of childhood friends / neighbours who owing to the class conflict of the era cannot marry or perhaps could not marry for lack of courage on part of Devdas who fails to express his love in time to his childhood sweetheart - Paro. Paro gets married to an older man but never forgets Devdas. Devdas is introduced to drinking and a dance girl chandramukhi by his friend Chunilal. Chandramukhi attempts to reform Devdas but instead reforms herself. Finally; Devdas drinks himself to death at the doorstep of Paro. Devdas has been a cult figure and is related to those men whose love remains unrequited.Despite some criticism for being not such a great story it has enchanted many a filmmakers and even Gulzar attempted to make one with Dharmendra, hema malini and sharmila tagore.Anurag kashyap has attempted to project modern/liberated Dev/paro/chandramukhi with dominant sex and slut to shock the audiance. The original Devdas is to an extent victim of external factors beyond his control whereas the characters of kashyap are tied to their internal conflicts. It is smart cinema but not endearing at all. It makes one uncomfortable with the overdose of sex, drugs and alchohol.
Even though Kashyap gives Dev D a lease of life in the end the traditional audiance feel disappointed.In the name of realism the maker has disfigured the sublime image of Parvati ( Paro ).
On returning from the movie dejected i wondered as to why we remember and look forward to Devdas even though knowing the inevitable; it is to see the union of devdas with paro ; not to revel at the elopement of devdas with chandramukhi.
Even though Kashyap gives Dev D a lease of life in the end the traditional audiance feel disappointed.In the name of realism the maker has disfigured the sublime image of Parvati ( Paro ).
On returning from the movie dejected i wondered as to why we remember and look forward to Devdas even though knowing the inevitable; it is to see the union of devdas with paro ; not to revel at the elopement of devdas with chandramukhi.
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)