ScreenArt

The Long Goodbye

2009-01-28T21:17:00.002+05:30

For all practical purposes this is my last post in ScreenArt. A strong movie-bug may bite me and I may resume active blogging here, but I don't see that happening. I like movies, I've just lost the motivation to write about them. In fact, there is a ton of half-reviews in my drafts folder that will never see the light of the day. And in the recent past I've had to fight my inertia to finish a decent post about a movie. It shouldn't be like this, and I think it's best for me channelize my writing energy in one place, ScreenAct, my other blog.

I've been reading, seeing, listening and talking a lot about culture, religion, society, daily chores, economy, business, politics, international relations.... I'm by no means an expert on anything but I have my opinions and what other means to express them other than blogging. I'll write about movies too in ScreenAct, but instead of confining my thoughts to the world of cinema, I'll take off tangentially and try to explore how a scene or a dialogue or a theme complements or collides with the society. I'm going to try hard to make ScreenAct work, which means at least one post in 10 days and not just a filler post or a personal ramble but a solid collection of my thoughts on something happening right now. If you're interested you can follow me there by clicking here.

When I look back I'm neither proud nor embarrassed of my posts here. My reaction would be indifference if a tsunami washed up ScreenArt. Thanks to all those who've traveled with me. So long.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-02T22:07:00.002+05:30

One of the hardest things for me to digest in Indian movies catered to international audience is the English-speaking cast. From the man who pulls rickshaw to the boy who collects garbage speak, not Indianized, but a grammatically right version of the language. Although that added to the annoyance, the chief of the cinema's problems is it aims celebrate a Bollywood dream - this comes from a man who gave us 'Trainspotting' and '28 Days Later'; Danny Boyle has swung from one end of the spectrum to... a different monolith of mind-numbing drama with no shades - a shameless exercise in an overnight rags-to-riches story demonstrating a ludicrous love story.

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-19T01:51:00.003+05:30

Going to a Bond cinema is like going to a magic show. I don't look at the magician's unused hand or his benignly silent assistant or the floorboard which might open up and gobble. I just look at the beautiful girl who's been pulled from the audience who's going to be toyed with. Nothing overwhelming, exhilarating or pulse-pounding but plain old entertainment value. When I step into the cinema hall, I'm allowing myself to be tricked into believing that even if a nuclear missile landed on Bond's back head he would some how survive it, dust off his clothes, adjust his shirt crease and walk away with his super sexy girl friend. But with the advent of Daniel Craig as James Bond, the equation has altered.

'Casino Royale' gave birth to Craig's Bond. He kills a couple of people, gets a double-O status, falls for a clerk from treasury, runs high on emotions and cries at the loss of his love. Well, for someone who's fed the franchise as a cool guy with an attitude, who hates to kill but does so because of his sense of duty, who enjoys bedding and then betraying the villain's foxy assistant, who quips gracious one-liners that make teen-girls want Bond and teen-boys want to be Bond, Daniel Craig sure quakes the earth. It has become a problem of expectations for me: Daniel Craig as a man who's lost his identity, savagely searching and destroying with ruthless efficiency, as observed by a couple of others, is proximate to Jason Bourne than James Bond.

Not just the characterization, but the narration and visual style seems heavily borrowed from the Bourne series. Super-small shots, intense chases, hand-and-leg street fighting, a plot that's not fully comprehensible, a villain whose motives and actions aren't fully explained … when I walked out of the theater I was as exhausted as Bond, at least he had a girl standing next to him. I just hope that when the character matures in the next two outings, Bond will be what one has known him to be. If there isn't a revival, for the magnificent job Craig does he deserves credit; but we'll call him something else, like John Doe and start restoring James Bond with the hunt for a new face.

The leading girl here, Olga Kurylenko isn't smooth skinned, (has a fire scar on her back) is unnaturally tanned for the movie (to look Bolivian where most of the story unfolds) and she doesn't bond with Bond. In other words, the sexy juice usually associated with Bond girls is sucked out in order to fit into a weak screenplay - an atrocious insult to the series. There's no Q, which means no high-tech gadgets that Bond gets to use. M, played by the immaculate Judi Dench is as good as she has been. I've always sensed an inexplicable sexual energy between Bond & M where M has always had an upper hand. Had she been 30 years younger, she would have ravaged Bond. And the wonderful French actor Amalric who plays the villain has been asked to put his acting gifts into a safe until post-production.

The less said about the story, the better. Either I didn't understand it or the writers/director have intentionally kept it that way in order to develop it in the next installment. Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a celebrated environmentalist, seeks power by destabilizing destabilizable countries, replacing their governments with friendlies and taking control of their water resources. Why that? The movie didn't answer or I didn't get it. Bond, who's on a top gear pursuit of the men who killed Vesper, (rather caused her death because she killed herself) through a series of jumbled links is led to Greene and from there through a series of rushed and chopped story-telling to a secret organization of top-class villains called Quantum. What does Quantum do? Somebody please throw some light.

If the producers wanted a super-hero who would bleed when pricked they should create one instead of redefining one of the most successful secret agents in movie history.

2008-11-13T21:49:00.003+05:30

Oh boy, I don't where TNR hunts their cinema critics. Christopher Orr *imagine a teenage Tarzan breast-beating* totally rocks.

I'm hoping this long break from ScreenArt helps me not only refine but also restructure my skills not only as a writer but also as a viewer.

Will be back soon. Thanks for hanging in there.

The Bank Job

2008-08-13T21:04:00.000+05:30

I've seen quite a few movies that deal with bank vault robbery. Once the contents are stolen the intelligence agencies get their balls rolling (no pun) and we're usually subjected to a cat and mouse game between the robbers and the intel. But what happens if the contents stolen belong to shady high profiles who want them to remain a secret. Of course none of them would go to police to give an itemized list asking for a fast recovery. They're going to find their own means of getting back what is lost. This movie, based on a true story that happened in London in 1971 is about corrupt cops and porn kingpins chasing an amateur gang that hits the jackpot with a bank vault robbery.

Terry Leather (Jason Statham) is a small time ex-con now running a used car shop, happily married with two kids. Martine Love, an old flame drops one day and offers a bank job. She says that the alarm system is deactivated and this might as well be an opportunity for a big league game. There's an ulterior motive that Terry doesn't know: Michael X, a self-claimed black Robinhood but actually a drug lord and a criminal of other sorts has photographs of a royal figure in compromising positions in one of those vaults and uses them as his immunity against prosecution. MI 6, the British secret intelligence service needs to get its hand on those photographs to press charges on Michael X and since they don't have a high-level clearance to directly get to his vault, they arrange for this heist.

I don't want to give away too many details about this high-class movie. For about first two thirds the director maintains a lightness that kept me engaged but also allowing me lay back a bit. But then the murder of a member of the heist sharply changes the tone - it's not a summer entertainer anymore, here's a serious story unfolding in unexpected way and I care about the characters. The underground businessmen are worried of their exposure, the crooked cops who've aided them all along are more worried, the good cops are helpless and the royal figures' decent image is at stake. The direction by Roger Donaldson is so fluent that one can sense the feelings and temperaments of each character without any effort at all.

For a crime drama there's a surprisingly good family scene in the movie. When Terry Leather gets home after the heist his wife slaps him with angst - not for his unlawful act but for an unfaithful act. There are only a handful of scenes that shows Terry with his family and in these few minutes the screenplay establishes how bound he is to his family. Now, that's rare for a movie that concentrates on a crime.

Ilayaraja Again

2008-08-12T06:19:00.003+05:30

There are never enough posts in praise of Raja. Recently, a flautist friend of mine sent a bunch of Raja's background scores to another flautist friend of mine - and there I was, a fool of music, in his CC like an add-on. The list is varied: Valli, Kadhalukku Mariyadhai, Nayagan, Aan Pavam, Guna... I've heard them all before and was still moved listening to them again. But the dark horse that blew me away was Aranmanai Kili. For a movie set in village starring Raj Kiran, you'd never expect such grand pieces. Especially there's one gem which starts with beautiful violin chorus with a western flavour and then suddenly there's a flute that peeks. And this flute piece, which just totally swept me away threatening to bring tears, has a touch of village nativity appropriate to the situation and it seems like a miracle that the two styles blended so perfectly to create what I heard. As it happens, the flute piece plays the pallavi of the song 'Raasave unnai vida matten'.

Listening to some pieces from Aan Pavam I was reminded of Raja's supreme reign in the 80s. He again does some magic with a violin & a flute, bringing me images of Pandian & Seetha running into each other. One piece greatly captures the soft romance, that there are times when the heart is just waiting ready to be given away. Most of the 'melody' these days just play at a slower tempo. He reminds us that a melody should touch you, even if the music rolls at the pace of 'Valayosai' from Sathya.

I'll finish this post with his work for Guna. I think this is one of Kamal's greatest performances (and I like the screenplay too). Listening to some of the BGMs for Guna, I was reminded of how Kamal's work has been accentuated by Raja over the years. Had Kamal been assocaited with a lesser musician in his prime, I'm sure the emotional punch Kamal dealt to the audience (talk about Mahanadhi) would have been greatly reduced. And I'm not only talking of Kamal's serious works. Michael Madana Kama Rajan has a great background track and Raja should be included in the comedy quotient that's usually only assigned to Kamal & Crazy Mohan. The movie would be definitely less funny without Raja.

Wanted

2008-08-10T06:52:00.003+05:30

A secret society called Fraternity comprising a group of well trained assassins having super talents like curving a bullet and superior body-eye coordination that allows them to bend a few laws of human anatomy are assigned names of people whom they should kill. Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is pulled into the Fraternity after his father, a member of the secret society is killed by a renegade. The plot unfolds informing the viewers of the reason of Wesley's hiring and some politics inside the group.

Talk about loads of stylized action: Angelina Jolie and James McAvoy running on top of a metro train, James stranded on a busy street is scooped like ice cream into a car driven by Angelina, a car crashes - of all things into a train and later that train crashes - of all things down a narrow gorge, and finally you thought what role could rats play in an action movie, right? These aren't super ideas nor supremely choreographed but such sequences just keep my movie clock ticking and hence not allowing me to ask too many questions about the foundation of the story. The very essence of summer popcorn.

PS: Over the years I've become a fan of Morgan Freeman for magnificently personifying a gentleman in a great variety of roles. In one the scenes in the movie, he casually utters a swear word and that came as a jolt, not only to me, but to many in the hall who audibly gasped. I know that he's an actor and he's only delivering lines from a script. Still I have a feeling that he was asked to do something below his dignity.

The Air I Breathe

2008-08-04T03:46:00.002+05:30

Jieho Lee, the director aims to do an Inarittu. Though this is no 'Babel', the cast he has marshaled is a very good one. Dealing with interconnectedness and human emotions (there are four episodes titled hope, love, sorrow & pleasure) Lee exhibits his high ambitions and takes his story very seriously. Unfortunately, the stories aren't strong enough to tie the viewer to the characters.

Brendan Fraser's chapter is intriguing, one scene in particular: he is a hitman, but his success is attributed to his vision - he sees what's going to happen before it happens. This ability of his has drained all of his interest in living as he doesn't know what it means to be uncertain. Then comes a day when his vision fails and he gets badly beaten in a gang fight. He doesn't resist, he enjoys getting thrashed for it symbolizes the first day of the rest of his new life.

After the Sunset

2008-08-04T02:51:00.003+05:30

The sun in the title is Pierce Brosnan & Salma Hayek, the lover thieves. After a high-profile crime they retire to, where else, someplace in the Caribbean Islands. And we must all think for a few minutes that the sun has set and we know that it really hasn't. Brosnan trades off his charm and built to fit a retired vacationing person. Hayek's dresses have cleavage cuts that are mathematically computed to reveal just about enough to tease the viewer.

The bulk of the story is about the drama between Woody Harrellson, a F.B.I agent and Pierce Brosnan when the former challenges the latter to steal a diamond of historic value guarded in a luxury yatch stationed in their island. Kill any logic nearby and you have a mediocre crime-caper-drama in your hands. Of course, there's a twist in the last 5 minutes and another one in the last two minutes - was not blown away by any means at the ingenuity of the screenplay, but I chuckled.

So, Where is Subramaniapuram?

2008-07-27T21:09:00.003+05:30

I saw a five-minute clipping of 'Subramaniapuram'. I don't know any of the faces. But the whiff is so strong. And then I saw the song 'Kangal Irandal' from the movie on Youtube. His get up was reminiscent of 'Sathya's Kamal and her beauty & mannerisms 'Sathya's Amala. The direction is so fluent, a little cinematic here & there, but I just simply loved. I last time I loved a song (music & picturization) on my first hearing was 'Urugudhe' from Veyil.

Can anyone update me on how the movie is, how its doing commercially?

The Dark Knight

2008-07-27T08:30:00.002+05:30

I've read so much about this movie that it almost feels like I can't bring in a fresh perspective to write a few words that I can actually claim to be mine. And I usually don't do that much reading unless I've written about it. The feeling is more like the cliche: what can I say that hasn't been said before. Now I join the chorus, but still desperately trying to be singled out.

'The Dark Knight' is not a masterpiece; it has its sagging moments, cheesy dialogues and a few questionable screenplay decisions. But the sense of satisfaction it provides when walking out of the theater is wholesome. And there are not many movies that make me feel that way. I recently saw 'Wall-E' and found it preachy and sermonizing (critics hailed that & the viewers got it to IMDb top 50). I saw another summer superhero in 'Hancock'. This was supposed to be a fun popcorn flick but the execution, lack of a flowing screenplay and an abominable climax made me throw up all the popcorn. I saw 'Usual Suspects' on video (another IMDb top 50) and hated the last minute twist because I was expecting it. Let's forget that Christopher Nolan's 'Dark Knight' is currently occupying the top spot on many lists. Numbers don't matter if the movie doesn't strike a chord.

The Nolans (Christopher & Jonathan, the writers) have spent much time in developing character arcs of the main cast, which seem a rarity in the superhero genre, most of which seem to leverage the skillset of the special effects department to hold the attention of viewers. In fact, that's one of the good things about this movie - there are no super super-effects. When Batman tries to save his love interest Rachel from falling off a building, he doesn't do it with grace & style but with a sense of clumsiness associated with an emotionally frantic situation. But you don't get any points for guessing who has loads of style & crooked charisma in this production. The Joker.

The battle between the hero and the villain is interesting because the hero is willing to bend his moral standards for the good of Gotham city and the villain has no moral standards at all. The Joker doesn't have a plan, he doesn't scheme. He just wants chaos to rule. Would he derive happiness in a chaotic world? Somehow, I can't visualize a 'happy' Joker. For him, blasting a hospital is the equivalent of sensual gratification, like masturbation. He'll do it again just because the pleasure has withered off. But his 'higher' objective is to see Batman off his mask. Now this would be close to a 'happy' Joker because of the efforts involved. Heath Ledger as the Joker does a great job. Like any good actor, he conveys a lot without saying a single word. His eyes, wonderfully expressive here, just made me fall in love with his acting prowess. Ledger is lost, but the Joker lives on.

Christian Bale as Batman delivers such a finely controlled performance. In a tight-call situation, he chooses someone over his ex lover because he believes that saving that person could really take a shot at reclaiming Gotham from the goons. A magnificently morally upright decision on the part of a superhero. But when he's driven to his limits, he uses technology to spy on the whole city to locate the Joker. (The US government is in a similar crossroads). He appears to justify his acts of invasion, vigilantism as the price the public has to pay for their safety. (Again, there are many real world parallels). The moral swing is subtly but very well portrayed by Bale but the real applause here is for the screenwriters for realizing a human-like character out of a superhero.

Here is a good story told very well, but it fits a template expected of such movies. The screenplay provides enough time for the sub-plots to mature (which results in a long running time). Most of the dialogues are solid & serious. In spite of having a Joker, there aren't many laughs. He does a trick too, but not funny: he says that he'll disappear a pencil and the next moment he drives into someone's skin. I was half-tempted to laugh, involuntarily. And the way one plot leads to another, supported by good actors and good dialogues gradually builds up the vastness of the movie. The story telling is epic-like and the performances and execution are epic-like, but the movie isn't an epic.

Talking of epics, there's an epic scale in the wide shots of Gotham (Chicago actually). Mostly dark and with too many glass doors and windows, the cinematographer Wally Pfister brings out the darkness in every one. As if he isn't enough, James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer, the musicians, inject a sense of immediacy fused with uncertainty with their white noise score. Another top work behind the camera belongs to Christopher Nolan for his consistent direction. The tone he sets up never wavers, with most of the 152 dense minutes gripping the audience. Andrew Sarris said that he's put to rest his doubts about Nolan's talent. If Sarris himself doesn't question, who am I?

Let me get back to the Joker. What's really scary about him is his ability to turn a do-gooder into do-badder. Someone who is praised as the white kinght is forced to become a dark.... well, let me say a bad man. And the movie captures his moral transformation with such power that it left me wondering if Batman himself is immune as his sense of morality is already lopsided. The movie offers a lot of moments to ponder & discuss not to mention the artistic & technical feats which are second to none. I solidly recommend this, if you love serious movies.

A friend remarked that this isn't worth being at the No.1 in the list of top 250 movies in IMDb. All I can say is that everybody has their own list.

The Dark Knight, Coming Soon

2008-07-22T19:19:00.000+05:30

The most commonly asked question: Is this the best superhero movie ever made? I don't know, I haven't seen them all. But this is the best I've seen. This is not popcorn superhero flick where the dad accompanies the kid so that the kid has a good time. This is powerful drama narrated by a very talented story teller employing artsistes and technicians whose works have blended so seamlessly to create a near masterpiece. In a sea of wonderful performances by Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart & Maggie Gyllenhaal there is one performance that totally blew me away - Heath Ledger's Joker is the role of the year and he delivers that in the movie of the year. I know that to call 'The Dark Knight' the best movie of the year even before the beginning of the Oscar season is a bit far-fetched and may strike as even arrogant on my part. Only if you haven't seen it yet. If another production can eclipse the Knight this year, then 2008 will be remembered for two great movies, not just one. More on this movie this weekend.

Talk about hype

2008-07-20T02:26:00.002+05:30

Dark Knight, released yesterday, is already at spot 3 in the top 250 IMDb list. And most of the critics agree that the hype is justified. I'm planning to visit a theater nearby in the next 24 hours and record my thoughts here.

Dasavatharam

2008-06-24T13:50:00.000+05:30

When the set-up precedes storyline one can only appreciate the decoration, not savor the meal. Kamal Hassan's idea of challenge is this: tall, short, muscular, paunchy, intelligent, mediocre, American, Japanese, theist, atheist, hindu, muslim, hero, villain, comedian... Of course, realizing these characters on screen is painful, but in this case, watching them too is. This is Picasso painting for calendar - two more roles and you're set for the year. If an actor playing ten roles in a movie is considered an achievement, then Kamal becomes a lesser actor than he is in 'Dasavatharam'.

I'm not going to dwell much on the story, which is a confused rendering of themes like destiny vs chance, divine intervention vs coincidence, godliness vs godlessness, blind faith vs scientific temperament. The movie starts with its best segment: a stand-off between Vasihnavites & Saivites in 12th century resulting in Rangarajan, an ardent devotee of Narayana, shackled to the statue and thrown into the sea. Cut to the present day: a vial containing a dangerous drug escapes a high security zone and is hotly pursued by the good & bad guys. There are many sub-plots and they all cut into each other (because of Tamil cinema grammar's compulsion) by strands thin as hair. The climax is not typical masala, but not far away from the typical.

What frustrates me the most is the number of junk roles (played by Kamal) floating around in the movie. What's so freaking sacred about 10 that he had to do this? His performance in Mahanadhi would have washed all these ten like a tsunami. Let me sample: a Punjabi pop singer is diagnosed with throat cancer. You'll have to see how bad this performance is to believe it. He coughs up blood and his wife runs to him. The expressions & lines of the husband & wife remind me of the 1980s Saturday evening Hindi movies. It's as if the actors had taken a oath to never act naturally. Either that or Kamal is subtly taking a dig at Punjabi movies & their actors with his non-descript lines for Avatar Singh (there's a bland reason for that name!).

Then there's Kalif Ullah - the good muslim son of a good muslim father. You get it, right? They're here to symbolize the goodness of the community in spite of viewed through terrorist filters. The funny thing about this guy is that everybody in the family speaks perfect Tamil and he speaks as if he's imported from Persia the day before. Then there's a Japanese martial arts guru who is in Chennai to settle an account. Two needless roles were squeezed in so that this Japanese guy has a purpose. But the WTF award goes to Kamal's role as George Bush. The guy has a dozen lines in the whole movie and the editor should have excised them to keep the material less fatty. The rest of the roles aren't necessarily strong, but at least they move the story forward.

It's not all that bad - because the above mentioned players have less screen time. Vincent Poovaragan, a Dalit social reformer has some good lines, good make-up, a performance fitting Kamal's stature and his end fitting Bollywood. Balram Naidu is a cracker of a personality - the dim-witted head of RAW interrogating & chasing an alleged terrorist is memorable mostly because of his impeccable accent. I'm sure that purists may find a tone or two inappropriate here & there. But for the general public, the variety in terms of accents he's brought over the years is delightful. Kamal's mastery of langauge is breathtaking - he's not just being a linguist absorbing words and their meanings but a supreme actor-linguist carefully weighing the pauses, whispers, overlapping-dialogues and related mannerisms that go with the culture.

Although Kamal is enjoyable in a few avatars here, the story & direction don’t help to hold attention. A stone hitting Rangaraja Nambi, the 12th century Vaishnavite results in blood trickling down his forehead symbolizing the 'divine namam' followed by, you guessed it, a song. The wisdom of a biotech scientist acceding to play by the rules of a beautiful girl in the face of impending but avoidable danger is not only illogical but also annoying. There's the accidental exchange of boxes resulting in dramedy. Then there's a timeline tag that keeps the viewer informed of what is happening when, which allows the hero to go on and on without sleep for 2 days. Kamal ties a lot of loose ends but not all; this is difficult because there are too many events & outcomes to tie them all. There's too much happening for the audience to connect to someone and care for them. The sum is very less than the parts - some of which are extremely fulfilling and some of which are disemboweling.

I've been wondering who'll cement the foundations of independent cinema movement in south India. Low budget no-name actors, directors & technicians coming together to create good movies. If artistes like Kamal don't promote them by writing & producing, there's no point in complaining about the standards in his next interview. Let Rajini speak for 55+ heroes who want to run around with 20+ girls & do the impossible stunts. Kamal has done that for almost 30 years now and it's high time to move on. Dasavatharam is more like a 3-hour make-up costume fiesta scoring heavy points to Kamal's repertoire of made-up faces. This is a movie Vijay or Ajith or Surya can be proud of.

2008-06-20T03:52:00.002+05:30

'Dasavatharam' is hugely disappointing in spite of not being a bad movie. It has more to do with the direction Kamal is walking towards. More on the movie and Kamal this weekend.

To all those who hung on to this blog: thanks for your patience. I'll try to be regular.

2008-06-03T18:51:00.001+05:30

I think I'm in love with Stanley Kauffman (TNR). He makes erudition a sexy quality.

I am Legend

2008-05-07T19:39:00.000+05:30

Manhattan thrown in the bin, Will Smith races in his speed car to a street corner where a deer lingers; when he is about to take a shot at it a pride of lions join the party. He looks at them and they throw a lazy glance back at him showing that they're really interested in the deer and not him. His watch beeps and he gets back into the car. This is the first scene and it wonderfully spreads the carpet for the audience - so many questions here, but as the movie progresses with answers only dissatisfaction persists. The director seems to be in love with the process of film-making but not the film thereby resulting in many shots that stand well in memory but the movie as a whole remains a chopped, illogical construction.

After prolific usage of a medicine touted as a cancer cure, the world realizes the enormous outbreak of a virus - which wipes a very big chunk of the living population and altering the physiology of a good percentage of the remaining population. Robert Neville (Will Smith), a military scientist by profession is one of few left unharmed and having lost his family is naturally inclined to synthesize a cure to the living zombies. He has a mini test lab in his basement where experiments with rats and later a living-dead. The premise is very science-fictional, not my area of interest, but the treatment of it wanders liberally into a lot of religion and sentiment that makes it all the more bad.

Will Smith, like Tom Hanks of Cast Away, single handedly pulls off this project. He has matured into such a fine actor that I almost didn't notice the movies many flaws in the scenes he were, which is almost every scene. There are few scenes that work really well in a Hollywoodish way - Robert killing his good friend and the monsters replaying his technique to bait. But the climax is so cheesy to the point of shouting at the screen "oh no". I haven't read the novel upon which the movie is based, but if this is a faithful adaptation I wonder why had this book been adapted twice before. One notable achievement is in the visual department - either it is very good set decoration or very good animation and they are captivating. But otherwise, this is a forgettable motion picture.

Marion Cotillard as Edith Piaf

2008-04-27T14:59:00.003+05:30

In a scintillating performance, Marion Cotillard paints a picture of Edith Piaf in La Via En Rose. The picture is not absolutely complete, but its full of fulfilling segments that gives the audience a peek into the world of the great singer. Some critics have called her role as a 'high quality imitation' , but its not. Marion gets under the skin of the Piaf - she not only walks and talks like her, but waits and smiles and shouts and looks and drinks... her body language is so accomplished that she grasps & emanates the essence of the character. Costumes, make-up and production design help her a lot - the viewer is transported to a different place & time just by the visual achievements. Not to mention the strong script which has helped Marion in giving life to Edith Piaf. This could very well be the high point in Marion's career because its difficult to surpass something like this outstanding performance.

One interesting point to note when it comes to Oscar winners in the leading actress category in the past 8 years is that 7 of them were playing a real life character. I hope the members of the academy aren't biased towards biopictures.

Idea Ad

2008-04-20T06:17:00.001+05:30

Probably the lowest budget advertisement in a presidential campaign.

Free Flow in Kadhalikka Neramillai

2008-04-13T07:47:00.005+05:30

There is such a stark difference between the performances of the Nagesh / Baliah duo and the rest of the cast in 'Kadhalikka Neramillai'. Consider a scene between V.S.Raghavan & Muthuraman: the son comes home, the father asks him a few questions, the son answers, the mother interrupts, cut. The transaction of words is governed by a rule, rather than spontaneity or naturalism. On close observation a viewer can clearly see that one actor is waiting for the other to complete his line so that he can begin his line. This is the same with body language - there are many shots where an actor walks upto a certain point and stops right at a point where the director has instructed him to for the best focus or frame symmetry or whatever behind-the-camera reason.

In real life, people don't conduct conversations that way; one guy starts his response well before the other is finished resulting in an overlap-dialogue. And there are pauses where either parties don't have anything to say after a round of dialogues. The threads of Nagesh & Baliah in this movie are solid examples of dialogue delivery. In an era where the emotions associated with dialogues came from shower heads, these guys opened up like Niagara. The classic scene where Nagesh narrates a thriller-horror scene to Baliah has been very well dissected that I have nothing to add other than express my awe at their vocal chord modulations & facial muscle contortions.

Nagesh's interactions with Sachu are terrific in the sense that how a director of Sridhar's calibre might have had a tough time with a new face like Ravichandran. Of course, Ravichandran's performance is artificial at the worst and ultra-bland at the best. When ever Nagesh, the budding director here, bangs his head at Sachu's acting disability, I wonder what went through Sridhar's mind. Baliah's reactions in the presence of the older Muthuraman is supremely enjoyable. The slide from the authoritative estate owner to someone like a petty businessman is extreme. Like the cartoons, there are no subtleties for the viewer to discern - the expressions are out in the open for everyone to see. His transition from a proud, authoritative figure to a submissive, controllable man is just binary - there are no in-between expressions.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter who the hero was or who got paid better. People still remember Baliah, Nagesh, K.V.Thangavelu, Chandrababu.... It's fun to watch these guys repeatedly as opposed to somebody like S.S.R or A.M.Raja. Action comes not only from an understanding of the screenplay but from an element that is twined with the inherent personality of the actor. These actors can transform some of the boring lines into funny snippets because they express themselves in those lines. Coming back to 'Kadhalikka Neramillai', this is a funny movie because it stars a couple of good comedians and has a script filled with funny lines. Replace Ravichandran & Muthuraman with Tom & Jerry and the movie will do just as well.

Death Proof's Car Chase

2008-04-10T07:21:00.002+05:30

One of the recent car chases etched strongly on my memory cells is from 'Bourne Identity' where the mini blazes through the narrow streets of Paris. But the immediacy & urgency in the sequence is generated by too many shots from various angles from inside & outside the car with some good music. The thrill is concocted but very much there.

I saw 'Death Proof' by Tarantino last week. You got to give it to the man - he just loves old movies and the final car chase, though not high on technique (because of the screenplay, a throwback to the sixties), its pure thrill. You just see two cars chasing & dashing each other and a woman holding on to her nerves. But the adrenalin this chase scene generates would be in litres. Tarantino said: Every time a stunt happens, there's twelve cameras and they use every angle for Avid editing, but I don't feel it in my stomach. It's just action.

Ginger & Cinnamon

2008-04-09T22:16:00.002+05:30

A teenage girl desperately trying to lose her virginity slaps a man who is passing out after drinking much. Too bad, he can't help her. And too bad, there's nobody to help the audience either. There's just too much talk and too little happening to hold my interest. A 15-year old girl cons her 30-year old aunt into a island beach resort where the young one mightily tries to get laid and the older one, who is freshly single after breaking a eight year relationship, wants to look at the world from a different perspective - essentially offering the viewer nuggets of wisdom about sex & relationship. American comedy sitcom's do a better job at offering such advice.

IMDb Link

Belle Epoque

2008-04-08T10:39:00.003+05:30

This Oscar-winning Spanish movie is just damn too light. It's the kind of movie where you walk out of the theatre and say to yourself "Now what do I do." The story is set in the early 1930s and has political and religious undercurrents - but the treatment is so frivolous that the audience are assured by the director that they don't have to be worried or joyed if a dialogue regarding the church or republic offends or defends their views.

The story is about four beautiful women chasing an young vulnerable soldier. Well, it's not much of a chase for any of the ladies as the young man positions himself at vantage locations. The movie begins with a crazy joke - Fernando, a young soldier has deserted his camp and he walks himself into a couple of police officers. (And I can't think of a police officer who has played an intelligent role if the story is set in the first half of the century.) With their lazy movements and fickle demeanor, they end up killing each other over a silly rule of law. The execution of this scene is so dramatic that it sets the tone for what is about to unfold later.

Four daughters visit their father for their summer break in a villa where Fernando has assumed the role of a cook. Since the youngest of the ladies is a virgin, she is constantly pushed out of sexual gossips. The first three ladies have a strong crush and make advances that result in 'consummation' - just to use an archaic word. And after every night spent with a lady, Fernando feels obligated to talk to the father to ask the daughter's hand. The daughter's don't want to show themselves off as sex-hungry beasts but at the same time don't even entertain the thought of a long-term relationship.

The books and movies and cultural stories that were part of my up bringing taught me the exact opposite: it's the women who wanted a stable relationship and the men just wanted to fling and fly away. Fernando, with his puppy-like face feels betrayed when the women use him. Finally, the virgin of the house (played by a young Penelope Cruz) matches his innocence and longing for something more than sensual. What's astonishing is the sexual freedom of the era this picture paints. In a scene that is 100% intended to be funny a husband says to another man who has been dating his wife that he'll be done very quickly with his wife, almost like asking his permission without offending his sensibilities.

IMDb Link

Sex & Lucia

2008-04-04T10:21:00.003+05:30

A title more simple & direct than this one is hard to come by: the movie is about Lucia and she has... well, a lot of sex. The explicitness here almost qualifies to be called soft porn - but hey, this is an European family fare. It's difficult to paraphrase the plot, if there's any such thing. The writer/director Julio Medem's objective is the same as David Lynch's when he made 'Mulholland Drive'. The movie is meant to be enjoyed frame by frame, with every scene being a self-contained well constructed piece. But when you piece them all together and try to make connections in order to understand the story - hmmm, you can try and possibly succeed too. But I'm afraid that will be your interpretation of the screenplay, because the point is to give an illusion of a clear story heading somewhere, but really, in the background make events as murky as possible.

Lorenzo, a novelist is the focal point of the story. Because of his one-night stand with Elena in a magical island, he sows the seeds for his daughter Luna. A few years later, he meets his daughter and strangely enough, his daughter's baby-sitter Belen falls for him. Now, in an emotional struggle that I half-understood, Belen has a crush on her mother's boyfriend Antonio and he reciprocates her crush, which Lorenzo is able to identify as he finds himself torn between Luna and Elena - the daughter and the mother. It's important that you understand the previous sentence, the essence of the movie. Where does Lucia fit into this picture, you ask? Well, she's the observer, Lorenzo's girlfriend, the character that very closely but helplessly observes the mental deterioration of Lorenzo.

Paz Vega as Lucia sparkles with a raw, natural beauty. And for capturing her beauty in so many amazing close-up shots, a big thanks to Kiko Rica. The movie is a lot saner than the picture I've painted here. Directors with a reputation, in the name of art sometimes come up with such products that remains in the memory for all wrong reasons. I'm sure Julio Medem can create lucid stories. It's okay to indulge in the art of movie making. But ultimately, it's the story that is the heart.

IMDb Link.

Billa

2008-03-10T07:33:00.002+05:30

Walking slow motion, talking nonsense, symmetric shots, ramp show decors, a sophomoric show by a teen kid inspired by 70's Hollywood thrillers. Sorry is the word.