PK: A One-Time Watch

PK is a one-time watch and its claim for that tag is the humour with which they have approached everything. Apart from that, there is nothing about the film that appealed to me: the acting, the storyline, the way issues have been handled, etc. In fact, the film tries to tackle a lot of issues in one go and fails to do justice to them; any of them. At best, PK is a mediocre movie and it's only the technical work like editing, screenplay and dialogues that make for some salvation, not Aamir Khan.

Talking about acting, the actors failed to establish a connect. Aamir Khan was good as PK, but the conceptualisation of the character wasn't brilliant; only his dialogues were. This is not even close to being his best performance. Anushka Sharma's acting doesn't let the character linger on your mind probably for her inadequate dialogue delivery. Sushant Rajput was good but barely had any screen time.

About the movie plot, it was fine, but that's all that it was. My problem with the movie was that it tried to do too much and failed at all of it. Let's take the entire idea of faith. Oh yes, PK could mobilise the entire nation with his idea of the wrong number with his common sense that he uses and others didn't prior to this, he finds all faith equally comforting and equally confusing, etc. However, the end shows the entire question of faith in religion on a stupid thing like whether the prophecy was right or wrong. Understandably, the film aimed at highlighting that being Muslim doesn't characterize one as a cheater and yet, it hinges on whether a relationship was trust-worthy or not. Putting the incredulity of the fact that the entire Pakistani embassy was on its feet at Jaggu's call, or that it was even open on a Sunday, or that this entire things is very conveniently discussed on national television like a personal dialogue, how does idealism of relationships save a situation where religious problems are in question? Ok, it's a movie so guy loves girl but would you really just throw the entire thing away if in real life, the guy really didn't love the girl?

This also reduces the lightly picked upon incident of the bomb blast and Sanjay Dutt's death in the movie. PK says God doesn't need protection, and fools like you tried to do something similar today morning with the blast. Now, such an important point gets lost because faith can easily be instead reaffirmed and a religious/spiritual mass leader can only be deemed unreasonable by the success of a love story. Sanjay Dutt's story hangs in the air like a parallel plot that was oscillated between relevance and irrelevance throughout the movie and it is denied a proper end even after it was elevated to something so urgent.

Talking about things that seem out of place, PK falling for Jaggu is also absolutely irrelevant. He didn't have to love her to have a discussion on staying on earth and finding love and changing names for that purpose to give her some cards to remind her of Sarfaraaz to hold her hand to know what's happened to reveal it during the talk.  That's called absudity. Again, another strand of thought picked up and left hanging in the middle.

So love, religion, communication, longing to go home, unrequited love and terrorism all tried to mesh together to make something wonderful. I think this project didn't quite go well.

Having said all of this, what make the movie a good one time watch is the way the logic in faith is manifested through PK. Locking his slippers with the cycle lock, looking at donation as fee for work, trying to find universality in communicating with God through wine, pooja ki thaali, etc. Makes sense and it is indeed a fresh approach to question logic of ritualistic faith.

So yes, you should watch PK. Yes, it is a good film. No, you don't have to leave your brains at home but don't expect it to be a mind blowing watch unless you're easy to please. It's just a good watch. 

Oscar Run #2: Whiplash

This movie is great for a lot of reasons. There are a lot of movies that show a protagonist trying to make a career in music, getting antagonised by people that he/she comes across and then with a tremendous talent or will power that refuses to fade, they emerge victorious and shine.

But Whiplash is different, because it is not another sellout to the popular culture and trend of making movies with similar trajectory. The movie doesn't end with the stereotypical cheers from a crowd, or tears of joy, or a family standing behind you proud. It doesn't even have a parallel romantic plot that takes equal prominence. It's just not your everyday mass-manufactured film.

So it isn't a surprise to see Whiplash getting five nominations, out of which three are for the technical and ideological genius behind the screen and only one is for great acting. This is not to say that the work of the actors is secondary. They are every bit of outstanding. However, the subtlety of the movie is what steals the show and that is because of the vision of the people sitting behind the camera.

On a side note, I have to say I could not believe that so many expletives could come together and still qualify as a proper sentence. Really.

What makes it a strong contender to win best movie?

Everything in the movie- genre of music, gigs of the band, screenplay- is very real. I think it works quite well to have chosen jazz music. The film doesn't bore you at any point of time even when the music is not your run-off-the-mill choice. Jazz isn't everyone's cup of tea but the movie makes you keep watching and keep listening. The music and the relentless practice is finely balanced with the struggle and the journey that Neiman makes as a student and as a person. From simply reacting to what's being thrown at him, he learns to act.

The movie's attempt is not to expect an emotional investment from the audience. It instead gives you a great deal to watch, contemplate and then feel blown away. I was glued to the movie and I wasn't particularly sympathizing or empathizing with Neiman. The good bit is that I didn't have to do that and I still loved the movie. The story is a great piece of work without or without my emotional connect. My emotional connect to the movie does not come from the hardships that the boy faced, or despising the cruel attitude of Fletcher. It comes from the extraordinary movie that Whiplash is. Watch it, you'll know what I am talking about.

The movie's editing makes it a decently paced movie which makes it an easy watch. However, I wouldn't place my bets on Whiplash taking the award in this arena.

Sound Effects:

I really like how the music pieces are independent in themselves and make for a such a good element in the movie. While it perfectly blends with the story, it doesn't necessarily change to tell the story itself. Unlike other movies, they don't work to heighten the sense of urgency or anything for that matter. Despite that, the sound goes with you and grows on you.

Is JK Simmons the Best Supporting Actor?

He just may be. The cold and absolutely ruthless character that he portrays may not so much embody the word supporting which makes me laugh a little (the irony in the literal sense of words is extremely funny) but he is a strong omnipresent and ever-present character in the movie. He is meant to never leave you even when he is not on screen and Simmons does that. He is like a haunting presence since the very first time you see him and then he disappears. What I find remarkable about him is how he managed to portray a character that completely bothered and unsettled me, but somehow I never hated him. For me, he was a fascinating puzzle that I couldn't solve and I just had to watch the movie to get a clue.

In the end, I would say that while I would absolutely recommend the movie, I would also admit that it may not be everyone's cup of tea. It has been made with a certain taste of vision, which makes the movie different from your regular watch to the extent of a different set lighting and presentation. If you can appreciate a bit of difference and variation, you would love the movie!

Oscar Run #1 : The Theory of Everything

It's the season for Oscars again! And since we have time, I shall review all the movies nominated for the best film award in terms of the awards they have been chosen for.

The Theory of Everything was on my watch-list even before it released. So I'm elated that it made to the nomination.

I was earlier a little confused about why but now I know why it made the final nomination. The movie is a phenomenal viewing experience. It moves you, the acting is brilliant, the story is outstanding and the direction is quite good, too. It's a fine balance between ambition and modesty.

The movie finds the ambition in plot and the modesty in execution which makes it a wholesome package.

Nomination for Best Film:

Apart from what I have already stated, the film captures how anti-climactic life is. With life-halting news coming to Hawking about his disease, you'd expect the movie to pause to build a sympathetic narrative around him and give him a moment, but when does life do that? The doctor informs him and walks away, he has to get back, Jane has to be dealt with (or not), decisions have to be made, college has to continue. Simple. It's as if you have received the news, the carpet has been taken away from under your feet (it's not your news so it couldn't have been the floor) and you are told to move on. But you do, because Hawking does. This makes for a beautiful movie also because it captures the essence of Hawking's life. It isn't suspended in a moment of time. It isn't a particular episode from his life. It's life; and despite the fact that it is predisposed to an uncertainty more grave than ours, it goes on. It goes on as long as it isn't over. The movie is just that. It goes on. It doesn't dwell too much on anything.

Nomination for Best Score:

I know I should talk about the actor and actress first but the score complements what I say about the anti-climactic nature of life and similarly, the movie. There are no major crests and troughs in the music from the base line. It gives one the spontaneity to enjoy the lives of the characters and yet, helps them absorb the reality which won't stop life. It is one continued of subtle and beautiful sound. There is also growth in the music. It starts with gentle footsteps, then grows up to match the problems that are revealed to be beginning and then grows to somehow try and contain the magnitude of how the problem hits life. The music is apt. That is best thing that music can be for a film, and for life.

Nomination for Best Actor:

There's a lot said about Eddie Redmayne already. Indeed, he has done a remarkable job in illustrating the common knowledge that Hawking has had a tough life. The acting is not reductive, which this common knowledge often becomes. He portrays the role of the stubborn authoritarian very well, and the gratitude for Jane comes shining through. It is never said, it is never narrated but the theory that Jane was who made Stephen pull through, would not be too far off the mark. Redmayne allows this to come through in not so many words, and not so many expressions but just the chemistry. That counts for a lot.

Nomination for Best Actress:

So how does a timid girl find courage to go on? How does she become the rock, the pillar of support and go on to live through abandoned individual dreams, lack of sympathy, help and falling in love again, pushing it away and getting back to live a life where she is continually sidelined? Ask Felicity Jones. With every deep breath she takes to pull herself back up, with every absence of sign  of strength in her eyes compensated by her relentless will, love and support, Felicity Jones stunned me. The way things dawn on her and her anger well concealed, how could the Hawkings forget Stephen's condition and take a house that needs a steep staircase climbed? How intricately has she played the part! She deserves this!

Nomination for Best Screenplay:

The screenplay is not ambitious at all, and therein lies its beauty. It dabbles with flashbacks of shaky tapes of Stephen and Jane's wedding, the improved technology that lets the camera show Stephen with his kids around, and goes on to set the tone of Stephen's mind's dwellings in the lab where Rutherford and others worked and found legendary success. It's not the weather that shows tranquillity when Stephens is at work, it's the silent company of the apparatus kept in the lab. The screenplay allows freedom to the actors to breathe life into the characters that are looking for narrative, and it allows the director to pin the actors to his vision that brings the narrative alive. The screenplay is an independently complete part that cohesively settles into this beautiful movie.

The Theory of Everything is a must watch. Once or twice may be enough for a memory but you want to get back. It may be a story of real people, but the film gives you enough to hold on to.

Gone Girl: A Brilliant Book and Film Noir

*No Spoilers*

Book Author: Gillian Flynn

Film Director: David Fincher

Film Screenplay: Gillian Flynn

Gillian Flynn, you brilliant, brilliant writer!

First of all, I have to say it was just such an immense pleasure to read the book. On the top of that, I am so glad that Flynn was able to negotiate the screenplay writing for herself and Fincher and she worked this out as cohesively as they have. Usually, comparing a movie to its book is a bad idea. Very rarely (I only have one example), comparing a book to the movie is regretted. Though, this one does not disappoint. Moreover, I feel pretty satisfied having read the book and seen the movie and getting to comment on both because job well done, you, Gillian Flynn, you!

The book may not be delicious when you begin reading, but really, you have to see what she's doing. When you picked up the book from the Mystery/Thriller section, and *hopefully* read the preview, you know the basic plot is that Amy disappears. Then, when you begin reading the book, I find it particularly interesting how Flynn sets the scene in anecdotes, morning time, event of the day, which sets our mind thinking of places, reasons, possibilities and motive already. It tickles our imagination and curiosity all the more. It could have been Amy's dissatisfaction with the place, or with the ambiguity their marriage was running into, or finding misery in a life ruined by recession; ANYTHING! All said and done, it's nothing you don't want to read. It's written well, too. In all probability, if you're wondering where she's going with this, it's in a good way.

The trailer is cryptic and I still cannot decide if I like it. I could not make anything out of the trailer. There's just a lot happening. Please visit the website, then. I shall be surprised if you tell me you don't love it. It's fresh and informative. It got me excited.

Quick word about the score of the film. IMDb says Fincher's directives to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross was that he wants the music to seem passive and relaxing but really, should instill a sense of dread. It did. For me, it was this close to becoming a horror movie closer to real life than so many jokes in the name of horror movies.

Let's jump right in, now.

The book and movie are absolutely gripping. Even when the mystery begins to unfold, it's not over till it's over. Flynn fills details in her book and gives each character, depth, rationale and each situation has intricate layers. She does not hold back and cuts portions of her book such that the movie makes for a gripping watch. While, some insightful details are left out, they don't compromise on the intensity and riddle of the plot. Impressive. It would not really be nitpicking, though, when I argue that some nuances to the character, especially Amy, are lost in this cut-down of the book for screenplay. The whole 'cool girl' explanation, logical reasoning behind Amy's actions, her temptation to go back, and comparison between Desi and Nick make everything so much more fascinating. I am aware of the gender-based criticism and I'm not getting into all that. Taking Amy as a person, I think she had psychopathic tendencies and the fact that there was a convincing logic behind it intrigues me, albeit the logic is ruined by her extremities and the caveat of having Nick's narrative giving her away. Without all of this, the film still gets you glued to the screen but Amy emerges as different from that in the book; here, she isn't so much of a psychotic woman. She's just what Nick says she is- fucking bitch. There are no layers, no genius intellect to Amy outside of her almost-impeccable planning and no probable root of cause for the viewer to come up with for her behaviour (which the film does show to be a pattern). Rosamund Pike nails it, though. You can like her as fast as you can hate her as fast as you can feel scared of her as fast as you can feel robbed of closure. Woah!

Nick Dunne gets away with more sympathy from his viewer/reader than he really should. He's a lying, and cheating man. America hates him for it in the book/movie but admit it, in the flow of the plot, you lost that perspective; I did too. I don't mind that one bit. His helplessness, his adorable relationship with his twin sister, his heart on his sleeve as he falls in love with missing Amy, cares for Andie but not so much so we can think he's not all that bad- works. I feel sorry that him, I do, but when the book ends I can't be sure about whether I see him as the victim or an equal culprit or what! Ben Affleck does a fabulous job as Nick Dunne. He's got the young, single, cute, charming act going for him. His stress, mess-ups, and that smile that messes things up on Ellen Abbott's show.

Madam Ellen Abbott. I understand everything about how media influences public opinion in the film/book, how certain media persons like to be activists or campaigners of a side, how they have a fan base of a following of sorts but I don't see how Ellen Abbott gets to be a part of the ending of the movie. I liked the book's ending much better. Not that does much, but featuring Ellen Abbott and giving Nick so many lines of conversation with her is like recollecting how amazing school life was and then ending with "Thank God! I met that xyz person on the admission interview panel!" Seriously, what? That's a bad way to draw a close when the book already has a better closing. All the other lawyer, media issues were covered smoothly and satisfactorily so.

Police. I really like how they were trying to find out the truth but really, sometimes, it was almost like they had chosen a side. Was it the right side or the good side or the bad side? You don't know that but you may even like them for it. They're not a nuisance. Amusingly though, their vantage points often oscillate from being influenced by the media coverage, to being the source of media coverage that provokes explosive reactions. Sometimes, they're also just sitting ducks -watching things cropping and thinking what on earth, really! With this, I know that Flynn is giving me so many perspectives as an observer who is right in on the scene, but never lets me know what the truth is until she decides that it is time to let me know.

Parents. I like how they've been included in the book but excluded in the movie. Simply because some bits may add to the plot or character's essence but sometimes, their mention looks pretty pointless. I wished she cut a lot more out. Surprisingly though, Amy's character in the book is often nuanced by the impressions and affects her parents brought to her life but really, it's all cut out and her parents are reduced to mere props in the movie. I wonder why it was so considering the screen space and time given to the pair.

Go, Margo. She can be the little sister, the twin sister, the conscience, the voice of reason, and just a needed presence for Nick Dunne. I think the character is very well done in the book and the movie. I like Carrie Coon but I also wonder if she was just the perfect one to cast. The role was memorable but the acting did not quite bring a strong hold of the plot in the movie which is otherwise demanded by the character in the book and readily given, too.

Desi Collings was an unexpected character. Again, it does not get much time to unfold in the movie so we really just put it all on Amy (I wouldn't mind if you did that in the book, too, but my point is that his character in the book shows you that there's more). So he comes in as the unexpected character in the book as much as he does in the  movie and there's a difference but everything being so interconnected, it does not make anything less interesting. Neil Patrick Harris surprised me. When he turns away from Nick, somehow he fits the role perfectly. Then with what happens later, he simply shows me that he is not trying to fit into the role. Instead, the role ends up looking like it is made for him. The grandeur of that, huh! I can now easily see him doing what Desi does in the book, too. He can do it all, bring it!

In closing, I can only mention that I read this book in a day and a half and I would not have taken the extra half, had it not been one hundred per cent necessary. I watched this movie in one go. No breaks. None. You want to let Gillian Flynn take you for this ride and you won't have the time to criticize much because neither does she leave many loose ends, nor do you have space to find those because you want answers, and you want them first.

Tell me what you thought of the movie or the book!

Satyamev Jayate

Satyamev Jayate is an Indian reality TV talk show hosted by one of the stalwarts of Bollywood in present times, Aamir Khan. He has also produced the show and forms a part of the core creative team that ideates each episode on the show. This show is something that the Indian audience direly needed for building a social collective consciousness; albeit in baby steps. Social media and news media clearly show that it has also made the right impact. What is also a matter of great commendation is that, Aamir Khan is capitalizing on his celebrity status to do something that is productive for the society instead of limiting this influence to endorsing hair products or fairness creams or whatever comes an actor's way which his contemporaries are busy with.

On the 9th of November, the last episode to season three was aired and it discussed masculinity. "When Masculinity Harms Men" as a show achieved a lot more feats than other episodes. The show's structural flow departed a little from the usual format and justifiably so. The production has aired episodes on the condition and treatment of women in this country, social problems like road rage and even child sexual abuse, etc. It seemed problematic, though, to bring people to discuss core reasons for these problems. Who in this comfortably patriarchal society would like to listen to people trying to talk about problems of MANHOOD in this time? So beginning by really asking men to list what they think is the definition of a "real man" and getting in shock stories in juxtaposition with the most coveted ladies of the Bollywood industries talking about the kind of men they'd like to be with, had to be the best way to make people sit down and listen.

Did-you-know interlude: For the episode titled "Fighting Rape" on the second season, a group girls (including me) from Lady Shri Ram College went to be a part of the video-chat with Aamir Khan. A girl from the group rightly asked him about what he thought of the portrayal of women in the Films that Bollywood is producing and since that promotes such misogynistic attitude, what is he doing about it. He, today has duly acknowledged that point out loud. Not only has he done a show that covers this as a sub-topic, but he also pointed out his own mistakes in his acting career in the video clip that was shown to address the problem with Bollywod movie ideation.

Discussing the pressure that Manhood imposes on men, too, sexuality and sex were no more taboo. The number of times the word 'sex' was used  out loud on the show was a first for the typical Indian audience. Of course, the word 'typical' loses all sense and references if one were to go through the Browsing History of the same audience through the internet connection provider (thank you, incognito mode)but well, living room/drawing dynamics function a little differently with a family setting for a given. For the first time though, it was not a confrontational stance, and not a sensational news. It was a fact. It is a reality in the relationship between a husband and wife and the instrument of violence to render the victim a weaker person. When did violence and relationship find the same means of display? Indeed, masculinity has been damaged the same way that womanhood has been. Somewhere down the line, patriarchy learnt to be so sneaky that nobody can see the mastermind behind it. Maybe, it's you, maybe it's me, or just all of us.

Satyamev Jayate has done some things so right that I wish they'd just stop and play it again. With so many seasons, and so many issues, the audience has enough to reflect upon.  Perhaps, it is time to talk about the success stories, and slap the worse situations on the society's face. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to pick those issues right back up. This show put a lot of petitions out there. Let's bring them back into focus. Female foeticide, child sexual abuse, criminalization in politics, water, alcoholism, tuberculosis, mental health, road accidents, etc. We've only just begun to see the fault lines but have we all really seen it? All of us? I think we just have to keep looking and someday we shall be ashamed enough to stop.

To know more about the show, visit: http://www.satyamevjayate.in/

Jai Hind.

Satyamev Jayate.