The Proposal: film review

Margaret (played by Sandra Bullock) is facing deportation to her native country, when she schemes a temporary marriage with her American subordinate, Andrew (Ryan Reynolds). The latter, desperately wanting promotion, agrees. But, after everything is set for their temporary marriage, which includes Margaret impressing Andrew's family and friends, she changes her mind (for obvious reasons).

*************************

Filmmaking is not about stories, but story-telling. And the biggest munch of story-telling is held by the acting department. That's exactly what this film proves. A very ordinary story on paper is transformed to an extraordinary one on screen; thanks to the brilliant portrayals by the lead actors. A romantic comedy by genre, 'The Proposal' has every aspect of filmmaking that could make it a typical film; but the chemistry between Bullock and Reynolds lifts the film to a much better reputation. Be it spontaneity or subtlety, Sandra Bullock plays her role with the utmost finesse. Competing for equal share of success is Ryan Reynolds, sporting his best expressions all throughout the film. The rest of the cast including Betty White, Craig Nelson and Mary Steenburgen impress.

Anne Fletcher does a good job in getting great performances from the actors and Pete Chiarelli's screenplay follows the simple three-act structure. Other technical aspects of the film are adequate.

*************************

Recommended to all romantic comedy lovers.

Sorry Bhai! - Film Review

At the very outset, let me confess that I love to watch films based on complex relationships and those that deal with breaking social taboos. And mostly those films............... in which Chitrangdha Singh alluringly flaunts her magical Smita-Patil-smile. So.... I loved Onir's third directorial venture, 'Sorry Bhai!'

*******************

I believe that, discussing the negatives first and then the positive aspects later, makes the whole point more positive than when done in vice-versa. And so, for things that I like and want to show them in positive light, I always start with telling about their negatives.

Onir makes the same mistakes which Karan made in KANK -- one, simplifying the complexity involved in the story, and two, giving reason for the temptation/falling-in-love aspect of the same. When a complexity is simplified, I believe, it's no longer a complexity. So as to understand, what complexity requires is clarity; and not simplification. In this film (as well as in KANK), simplification completely dominates clarity. All the characters are so mature, pleasing and understanding that, even before the taboo is broken, you can guess that everyone will accept it. The intensity of the conflict is enormously diluted. Even Shabana's character, who was supposed to be the key opposition, is far from being an antagonist. And the obvious lack of an antagonist makes the drama very feeble and simplistic. Same with Abhishek and Priety in KANK! They were hardly antagonists.

When you give a reason as to why you fell in love; then, my dear friends, either the reason or the love will cease very soon. The concept of logical reasoning dilutes the very truth about Love. Love was/is/will never (be) bounded by reasons. A person loves another, only because, he loves him/her. That's it!!! And that's the reason why Rani Mukherjee's character, Maya, is the best written character in KANK. She doesn’t have any reason, literally no reason, to fall in love with SRK's character. But she does; only because, she loves him. And that's what makes her part of the story in KANK more romantic than that of SRK's. SRK's character is given all sorts of reasons for him getting into infidelity -- bored marriage, personal handicap, inferiority complex, dominating wife, etc; and I felt those reasons are not required if the story is a pure love story between two persons. I would have loved the film more, had the story been like SRK, happily married to Priety with a son, falls in love with Rani, who has got the most perfect man in the world as her husband. The lack of genuine reason for them to fall in love is what makes their love a taboo or forbidden.

In a way, Rani's character is what makes KANK a superior film to Sorry Bhai. The latter has all the love and affections bounded with reasons. Even Sharman has a reason to obey to his mother. Can’t a son obey his mother, without a logical reason? Can’t he love his brother without any explanation? This concept of logical reasoning given to the love and affections portrayed in a story makes those emotions too much bounded. And mind you, I am not blaming any character for having reason to love; but it's the writers/directors to blame to giving reasons for their characters to fall in love.

For this I have another analogy related to the difference between CheeniKum and Nishabd. In CheeniKum, neither Tabu nor Amitabh give explanation or reason to fall in love. They just fall in love, just because they feel so. In Nishabd, though the character's don’t really pose any reasons to fall in love, the director, right from the start, gets defensive by soaking Amitabh is guilt. Talking about breaking a taboo is also a taboo in itself. And when one decides to break a taboo, he/she should dare to break it. This daringness was evident in CheeniKum and lacked in Nishabd, KANK and Sorry Bhai.

Onir's direction is good upto a level where he is able to keep the characters from going over-board. But I felt, this story needs to go over-board at some places; especially in the scene where Sanjay Suri comes across the truth. Slapping Sharman is too feeble of a reaction. In KANK, Abhishek towers his performance with that one scene when he gets mad. Kudos to Karan there! Such a scene in Sorry Bhai could have added points to Onir's fame. And also, when handling complexity, Onir fails to effectively utilize the real-estate of the screen-space. Each event happens in succession as if two emotions could never occur simultaneously. Had the temptation and guilt been shown in the same frame, Onir could have scored even more points. Most of the frames are picture perfect landscapes which hardly add anything to express the complexity of the theme. Also, the humor is very much misplaced at key plot points. I think Onir was confused with the genre. He wanted to make a comedy; but his treatment got too serious. So the film ends up being neither a complete comedy nor an intense serious drama.

**********************

The biggest positive in this film is undoubtedly the ethereal, other-worldly, Chitrangdha Singh. Swimming against the negative currents of a half-baked character, she emerges successful in portraying the 'bitch' of the story; and that, with utmost grace. I doubt, infidelity could ever be so graceful again on screen! Watch out for the sparkling expression when she tells her friend that she will make Sharman fall in love with her. I almost fell in love!!! Thank God!! It's just a film!

Sharman Joshi, Sanjay Suri, Boman Irani, Shabana Azmi; all have done their respective roles very well. Cinematography by Sachin Kumar is good and so do the compositions by Mithun. The production values are adequate. A couple of songs went well with the flow of the film and they sounded good. The script though faulted, is good at many places. The whole episode of 'jazz ka bura asar' is very beautifully written. Also, the conversation between Chitrangdha and Sharman near the swimming pool, the night before her marriage to Sanjay! Amazing lines! Simple, compact and very expressive! And the scene, where Chitrangdha looks at herself in the mirror only to be caught by her friend, of thinking about Sharman, is very well directed and enacted.

**********************

A watch-worthy film!

Ankit Pallavi and Friends: Audio review

Sometimes we take chances, and it works! A slightly-aware-of hero (Nikhil, Happy Days fame), an even lesser aware-of film-maker (Hari Yeleti, idlebrain.com blogger) and a totally unheard-of composer (Vinu Thomas, who’s he?)... I just took a chance!

I would like to divide the music of this film into two categories. The first being the ‘conventional’ category; and the other is the ‘uniqueness’ category.

The ‘conventional’ tracks are meant to please those audiences who would feel dissatisfied on not finding certain conventional elements. ‘Dost he dost’, ‘Tell me yem kaavalo’ and ‘Aranavvulenduko’ fall in this category. The lyrics (Vanamali, Ramajogaiah Shastri) of these tracks are typical; many a times, we may find forced-in words/phrases. But what I found refreshing about these songs is the brilliant percussion used in the background; the mood is raised to a higher quality. And as we repeat hearing these tracks, the lyrics, here and there, have a few flashes of brilliance in the ideas expressed. Especially, check the song ‘Tell me yem kaavalo’ for the great arrangement and lyrics.

Now, the tracks that make this album ‘unique’…..
Concentrated in melody, ‘Alagake allari vayasa’, this track would make one nostalgic about moments when we relished the refreshing aura of clean and pleasant cinema. (Shekhar Kammula’s ‘Anand’ being an example). Vanamali’s lyrics are superb and the singers (Pranavi and Balu Thankachan) take full advantage of the melody and make a lasting impression.
The pessimistic part of Optimism is that it is tough to keep it on. But if it is made so easy to listen like in the track, ‘Leletha navvule’, pessimism winds up and hides at a corner; atleast until the song gets over. Apart from the great composition by Vinu Thomas and wonderful lyrics by Vanamali, just hear to the smooth rendition by Karthik.
It has been long since any composer has orchestrated a song like ‘Premani premani’. Probably Ilayaraja was the last person I can remember (‘aakasam anthahpuramayyena’ and ‘assalem gurtuku raadu’ from Anthahpuram are examples). Be it the guitar, or the violin, or even Karunya’s raw voice; everything flows so synchronously. And on top of all this, Vanamali’s words are simply beautiful.
A love story without painful moments is never complete. The track ‘Neelo medilina’ serves to make this film a complete love story. Deepu gives perfect rendition to Vanamali’s soulful lyrics.

Having heard the songs, expectations on the film go a bit too high. Vinu Thomas surely has the knack of creating more sweet melodies in future. But will Hari Yeleti prove to be another Shekhar Kammula? Let’s wait and watch….

Tail piece: Also do not miss the songs from Yashraj’s ‘Bachnaa ae Haseenon’; they are awesome, esp. ‘Khuda jaane’!

Sarkar Raj: A Dream Come True!!!

I came home from the theatre and slept.

===== 0oo@oo0 ============
I was showed way into the room and as I entered, the lights went out! In the dark room, I heard a female voice: ‘This is the exactly why I want the power plant project to be real!’ From my experience of having watched umpteen films, I could recognize the voice. Mrs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan continued: ‘Dad! Do something for Maharashtra!’

Someone lit the candle and I could see Aish sitting along with Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Mr. Ram Gopal Varma. A tall man stood in the shadows near the window. Before I could recognize him, Amitabh responded to Aish’s concern: ‘Look Aish beta! See outside the window, the street lights are on. The power-cut is only in Ramu’s house! Not for the entire Maharashtra! What Ramu? Don’t you have money to pay the current bill?’ And added his typical: ‘Aihhh!!!’

Ramu’s head was bowed down. I felt he was feeling ashamed of his poverty. But he suddenly came into senses when Aish pinched him to respond. Oh! He was just dozing!

Having opened his eyes completely, Ramu saw me. He showed me the empty chair and in the dark, I somehow managed to find the seat under my butt.

Like Shahrukh hams, Amitabh growls! And with a growl in his baritone, he asked me: ‘Kaisa chal raha hai sab kuch!’ Hearing his terribly terrific voice, I got terrified and just mustered the courage to nod my head.

Ramu asked me: ‘Ab kya?’

Me: Ramu ji, I want to ask you a few questions on the just released Sarkar Raj!
Ramu: Go ahead!
Me: In your pre-release interviews, you have mentioned that while making ‘Aag’, you have been influenced by many opposing forces and could not make what you actually intended to. What about ‘Sarkar Raj’? Didn’t you have any opposing forces against you this time?
Ramu: Nope.
Me: And yet you ended up making something like this!
Aish looked at Amitabh and Amitabh in turn, glanced over his shoulder at the man in the shadow. Oops! I haven’t yet recognized that man! I saw him somewhere; but before I could recognize him, I heard Ramu’s voice.
Ramu: What do you mean?
Me: Nothing! Let me get to my next question.
Ramu: But what do you……
Me: Ramu ji! Why is it that all the people around the Nagre family are shown to be betrayers? Even his most loyal servants are shown to be negative. Wouldn’t it leave a bad taste among the audience with respect to trusting people around them?
Ramu: I advise no one to trust anyone in this world.
Me: Ok Ramu ji! I will try to heed to your advice. Coming to my next question… this is quite related to my personal opinion…..
Ramu: Don’t hesitate! Go ahead!
Me: In 2006, when you scraped your film with Mr. Shahrukh Khan, you gave a statement that, directing Shahrukh is like going back to school. And then, the very next year, you made three consecutive debacles, the most prominent of those being, RGV ki Aag. After that, as your ardent admirer, I wished you really go back to school. I sincerely wished it. I really wanted you to get back to your basics. But while watching Sarkar Raj, I was dissapointed when your sub-plots seemed so half-baked. I observed that your screenplay was the weakest factor in the film. It lacked a proper story-stucture and emphasised much on Sarkar’s self-proclamation and self-justification. And Shankar Nagre repeats about doing ‘good’ for Maharashtra. It sounded very pretentious. Instead had the screenplay focussed on the problems prevailing in Maharashtra, Shankar’s anguish might have sounded justifiable. By avoiding the problems, your screenplay threaded the path of escapism and indulged into shallow heroism tactics. And, I somehow felt that by ignoring these basics taught at school, you are actually spoling your own craft. Am I missing anything while thinking all this?
Ramu: Yes!
I waited for sometime, expecting him to continue. But he didn’t! Then I realised, that he actually answered the last part of my long question. That’s how his films often carry short answers for long questions; and long answers, for no question at all!!!
I moved to my next question.

Me: Your actors in Sarkar Raj are brilliant! Be it the Bachchan trio, or Dilip Prabhawalkar, or Upendra Limaye, each and every actor was brilliant in their respective performances. But their good acting is let down by weak characterisations. Except for Somji’s character, none of the characters and the character-turns was genuine. Too much of ‘thick-outlining’ gives away the authenticity, especially when this caricaturing happens even to the lead characters. Too many close-up shots were a strain to the eyes. And also, why is Shankar Nagre against listening a complete line which his father tells. Before his father could complete a line, he cuts him short with some serious, self-boasting and over-confident reply. Is it the laziness of your writers to complete the dialogue?
Ramu: Nope. My writers have written complete dialogues. But I wanted Shankar to show some arrogance.
Me: Arrogance! And on his father, who served several years before him! Is this kind of shallow arrogance your definition of heroism?
Ramu: Next question!
Hmm….. I can understand! I am getting you, Ramu!!!!

Me: There is a belief among your fans that, you make ‘different’ films. Though I often fail to understand what was different in your films, I have chosen to believe that you don’t get into mushy melodramas which are made by some chief production houses. But given that, those film-makers make a mediocre product by copying their own previous successes, don’t you think that your films too are mediocre as most of the elements are copied from your previous films? How do you justify this mediocrity in your films?
He got uncomfortable in his chair, thought for a long time and uttered the following….
Ramu: I don’t understand your question.
Me: Ok sir! I will move ahead……. In your blog, you have mentioned that you want your characters to be subtle and restrained in their expressions; and that you hate people who lose their restraint. So you hate charaters which cry often, like in our mushy Bollywood melodramas!
Ramu: Yes! In my opinion, such crying and weeping films are made by gay people.
Me: But in the last 15 minutes of the film, at the end of every dialogue which Amitabh utters, a tear is shown to flow from Aish’s eyes….. a dialogue, a tear…. a dialogue, a tear! Why the change in treatment? Anything to do with the association with Ekta Kapoor! Or is it anything to do with your own gay shades?
He tried to be as restrained as possible, trying very hard to prove his manhood!
Ramu: Nope. It’s just that Aish is a woman and women can cry. But men shouldn’t. He who cries is not a man.
Me: Then in the last 5 mins of the film, Amitabh too lets down multiple flows of unstopping tears. Does it signify his loss of manhood?
Now Amitabh got agitated and growled in his masculine heavy barritone.
Amitabh: Aiihh!!!! This fellow writes something in his blog, and now you drag me into it? Aiihh!!!
Me: That isn’t my concern, sir! I just wanted to know how different is the weeping shown in Karan Johar films, compared to that shown in Ramu ji’s films. Ok! Anyway, I will move to my next question…

Me: Having watched the film last night, I sensed the story having parallelism to the real scenario surrounding the Bachchan family. Is it true or was I reading too much between the lines?
Ramu smiles for the first time, that too, a proud smile.
Ramu: You are right!
Me: Can you please state the scenarios which were depicted in the film?
Ramu: One is very obvious: Somji, simulating Raj Thakerey!
Me: Yes sir! The actor who played the role was brilliant! He was a perfect antagonist in the first half. Almost similar to Mr. Kay Kay Menon’s role in Sarkar!
Ramu: Yes! The actor is Rajesh Shringarpore! He is a very good stage-actor.
Me: Then, the next real scenario?
Ramu: Guess!
Me: Congress?
Ramu: Yup! Rao-saab’s character represented the Congress party, which has been against the Bachchan’s for very long.
Me: Sarkar during his self-proclamation, utters ‘maine apni jindagi, apni sharthon pe jiya hai’, meaning that Subhash Nagre lived his life according to his own terms. Then in that case, isn’t it contrasting to show Subhash Nagre relying on Rao-saab’s blessings?
Ramu: Hmm.. a good catch! We somehow missed this, but our intension was to show that the Bachchan family was close to the Gandhi family before they parted ways owning to political friction.
Me: Ramu ji! A personal question related to the Congress party! Do you think Mr. Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi, also known as Mahatma Gandhi, is the man behind the ongoing, and probably an everlasting, political chaos in our country?
Ramu: No comments!
Me: Ok! The next….
Before Ramu could answer that, I changed the question.
Me: By the way, there is this assassin in the film who wears gloves, carries a bag and is hired to kill Shankar Nagre. Why wasn’t his face shown to the audience?
Now Aish pops up in between with her thin-like-her voice.
Aish: Because Shahrukh’s fans may not accept it!
I was startled!
Me: What?
The three of them looked at each other and looked at me with an obvious pride of having known the identity of the assassin; and moreover, me not knowing it!
Ramu: That is exactly the third real scenario.
Me: Pardon me! I don’t get you!
Aish: What does Shahrukh wear in his film Don?
Me: Gloves!
Ramu: What does he carry with him?
Me: A briefcase!
Ramu: Or a bag!
Me: Ok! I get the clues!
Though I sounded to be convinced, I heard Amitabh.
Amitabh: What is the prize money amount in Shahrukh’s latest flop show?
Me: 5 crores.
Amitabh gets a naughty smile on his face as Ramu takes over…..
Ramu: Exactly the amount which the assassin asks for to kill Shankar Nagre.
I raise my doubt.
Me: But why Shahrukh?
Ramu: In a nut-shell, the story is something like this. Amitabh maintained his stardom for such a long time and wanted to pass the mantle to Abhishek. But the opposing Congress party has hired Shahrukh to castle Abhishek and now, Abhishek is no where left in the game. So Amitabh has taken Aish into his family to maintain stardom, until his grandson grows up to conquer Bollywood. And that’s how Shahrukh’s character is part of Sarkar Raj.
Aish with her finger pointing me, warned: Mind you, this entire Shahrukh thing must be off the records.
Me: Yes, Ma’m!

Me: So Ramu ji! This whole film turns out to be a political reply to all those opposing the Bachchan family. To get further into this…..
Amitabh: Aiihh!! Stop!! You are going too much in-depth. Why can’t you ask how much of a good response we are getting for the film… how it’s been appreciated by many people? Why can’t you ask such questions? Aiihh!!!!
I hesitated to respond, but somehow mustered my courage……
Me: That’s because, I don’t ask stupid questions.

Then I heard the man in the shadow speak: Tho, (as a journalist), tumhara jinda rakne ka faiyda kya hai?
Having said that, he came forward (to visibility). Yes, Now I recognized him. It was Mr. Abhishek Bachchan.

And then, he pulled out a gun and pointed at me. Amitabh gave a scary stare, Ramu bowed down his head to continue his slumber and Aish lifted the tea cup to take a sip. And the background score stammered everlastingly…..

‘Govinda! Govinda! Govinda!........’

And I was shot::::::: ‘jhhiskaaaaaaaaaammmmm’

===== 0oo@oo0 ============
I suddenly woke up in my bed. Oops!

== = = @= == =@== === ========
The above review is written to be in sync with the film: half-baked, mostly meaningless and disappointing. My sincere apologies to those who have felt bad at some points of this write-up!
== = = @= == =@== === ========

Halla Bol::: Where Rang de Basanthi failed...

Where Rang de Basanthi failed, Halla Bol succeeded. Many may argue.... I request them to please hold on and let me justify.
The best way to realize a person's righteousness is to pardon his mistakes. On a similar note, I feel that, the best way to appreciate Raj Kumar Santhoshi's Halla Bol is to excuse its obviously glaring mistakes.

At the very outset, Halla Bol is not a misleading film like Rang de Basanthi. The film does not show the protagonist killing the culprits and later preach about non-violence. Instead, it emphasizes the prominence of raising one's voice over (the easier option of) raising the weapon.
The film tells the story of a film superstar who comes down to the streets to spread the word of revolution. On an unfortunate day, Sameer Khan witnesses the brutal murder of a woman. Blinded by success and bounded by insecurities, he does not dare to fight against the high-profile culprits. After a dramatic turn of events, he changes his mind and decides to stand by the truth. He plans to evoke the public through a street play. And as expected, he faces severe oppositions.... until the public and media come to his rescue.
The sutradhar of the film, Siddu, played brilliantly by Pankaj Kapur, is one of the best original and inspirational characters to come by among the Bollywood ventures in recent times. The way he expresses the Godliness of Truth, with hardly any dialogues and an intense silence, is truly mesmerizing. Leave everything else, Halla Bol is a treat to watch just for this one man!!!

Now turning all the way around, let me quote that: Halla Bol fails where Rang de Basanthi has succeeded! The following are the follies which Halla Bol must be forgiven for.
Rang de Basanthi, in terms of execution, was very superior. It had the compactness which could hold the audience's attention. Halla Bol lacks the same, owing to Santoshi's out-dated-ness in screenplay. His execution was too simplistic for today's mature-than-yesterday audience. And the climax looked as if he wanted to finish the story soon and bluntly send away the audience. As a result, the normal audience hardly has anything to carry. Rang de Basanthi, though a bad climax, was riveting in the way it was executed. So the audience had enough to take back home. Only had it been a better climax!!! Oufff!!!! Leave it!!!
The other problem with Halla Bol is Ajay Devgan being misfit to play the protagonist. Sameer Khan's character is a combination of Shahrukh Khan's flamboyance and Aamir Khan's stern-ness. And this is exactly where Ajay Devgan fails. Be it his limitation as an actor or his over-confidence on his ability to act, he is just unable to move away from his typical Bhagat Singh expressions; neither in jovial scenes nor the serious ones. There is no variation in his expressions. In my opinion, Aamir Khan is the best person to play this role, though Raj Kumar Santoshi claimed (in an interview) that he has actually planned to make this film 10 years ago (1997-1998) with Shahrukh Khan.
Next, the film lacks the commercial appeal, either in terms of music and promotion. The music sounds very uninteresting and the promotion just threads attempts to overwhelm Rang de Basanthi.

I am surely not an expert on revolution, but would prefer to take this moment to express a few words. Please do correct me if you feel that I am wrong. And owing to my absence in any revolutionary act so far, I do realize that, I may not be eligible to be assertive in my expression. But the following write-up is just my attempt to think beyond the obvious story-lines our Bollywood directors are dwelling into.
Be it any case of injustice, is 'punishing the culprits' the ultimate goal of the revolution involved? As much as I know, in Jessica Lall's case, the culprits were atmost punished by the court. Now, has it changed anything at a society level? Has the verdict challenged the conscience of the society? Today, a year later, is a common man (be it male or female) safe from the people who hold power? Is the society conscious enough to fight against the culprit when situation arises (not after the damage has been done to the victim)? On the whole, has injustice stopped or even reduced by that verdict?
Many may argue that: this is a first step and someone has to take the first step; Jessica Lal's murder verdict is a success of that first step. I know that many would agree with this. But, I really don’t understand, why are we unable to realize that the first steps of revolution were already taken by people pre-independence. And unfortunately we are still continuing to appreciate the same first step. How many first-steps do we need to fight against injustice? When will we really start thinking beyond this FIRST STEP? Numerous films are being made mostly emphasizing this first step. Is it because we find this first step very entertaining? Or are we not ready to think beyond this step?
Now, since I have raised the issue, let me express the solution too. In my limited knowledge of films, the only film, in recent times, which gives proper solution that dwells beyond the first-step-aggression is Mani Ratnam's Yuva; it says: to satisfy your taste-buds, cook your own food! At a society level, change will occur only when the younger generation takes up the ruling pride rather than just loudly shout against the government!!! But entering politics may not look as fashionable and melodramatic as the mass-rallies showed in films like Rang de Basanthi and Halla Bol!!! So the solution to the issue lies in the choice between a fashionable loud shout and courage to enter politics!

Back to Halla Bol, I would recommend this film to all those who do not mind being entertained by the loud shouts and ideal one-liners.

Taare Zameen Par: A Celebration of Life and Uniqueness

There are a very few, in this world, who are born to be uninhibitedly unique. But unfortunately, many of them are forced to flow along the commonness of the majority!!! 'Taare Zameen Par' is a tribute to all of them.

--+$0*0$+--
As everyone might have known, being 'not good at studies' is like a social taboo. Most teachers love brilliant and diligent students; and, if taken on a humor note, almost have crushes on class-toppers! For me, it’s because of the human tendency to settle in the comfort zone. When they can get self-appreciated with the report cards of good students, why should they worry about the weaker ones, whose reports cards bring them disgrace? And hence, Ishan, who is severely bad at studies, is treated like an untouchable handicapped. But he cared less about the teachers’ indifference. He knows that his mother loves him. His mother’s love is the confidence factor left in his life. And he goes ‘bin-daas’!!!

Many parents aspire to put their children on the zenith of this merciless competitive world. But they are a very few who inspire their kids to be there. In the maze of aspirations, the importance of inspirations is forgotten. And thus, the unique ability in most of the gifted kids becomes dormant. Whether, in future, the ability is invoked back, is destiny. As for Ishan’s amazing ability to paint, it would have gone dead, if not for Aamir Khan’s surprise entry!!!

--+$0*0$+--
There are many positive and negative paths in life. Parents must take care of their children from threading the negative ways, but leave the choice of the positive path to the children themselves. It is the latter aspect which most in our society fail at. Some children are born to walk the road less travelled. And on the other hand, those who thread along with the general flow of the crowd must be appreciated enough for keeping up with the harsh competetion. I have read in a review by a certain woman, that after watching this film, she realized about forgetting to appreciate her son for his good work at school and she must take time in keeping up his morale.

The best part of this film is that it is very less preachy and carries no pretence. It doesn’t force the audience to think on its lines. On the contrary, the story is so strong and in-depth, that the audience themselves will identify with it. The focus on the importance of ‘journey’ through childhood over ‘destination’ of the same is very well handled. The film expresses that childhood is not only about ‘focus’ on future, but ‘living’ the moment to the fullest.

--+$0*0$+--
A synchronous audio-visual blend is very important in any film to enhance effect of the theme to pronounced levels. Setu’s cinematography leaves no stone unturned to capture even the minutest details of Ishan’s expressions; Prasson Joshi’s lyrics aptly describe his anguish; and Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy’s compositions assert the essence in the lyrics. Hats-off to the wonderful technical team whose creative genius’ and hard-work are very much evident on the silver screen.

The acting department is completely natural. Be it Vipin Sharma playing Ishan’s father or Sachet Engineer playing Ishan’s brother or Tanay Chada as Ishan’s friend, the performances are refined and identifiable. Tisca Chopra as Ishan’s mother is outstanding and Aamir Khan, playing the ‘sutradhar’ of the film, makes no mistakes while sticking to the basics of method acting.

Choosing the best part in films like these is always an unfair practice. But like every human who is tempted towards favoritism, I declare Darsheel Safary, playing Ishan, as the best part of ‘Taare Zameen Par’. And with numerous reviews already in the stands, this declaration may not sound a personal one. It is quite obviously general that Darsheel steals everyone’s heart. Backed by a strong characterization, he simply sails through the role so effortlessly that it is hard for one to resist sailing along with him through the story. It is rare to find such perfect blend of actor and character. In fact, I would even call it a unique combination!!!

--+$0*0$+--
Having said it all, I would quote that, as much as there are people who don’t realize that they are unique, there are even more people who don’t realize that they are not unique. Yes!!! That’s the reason why, these days, we mostly find mediocre films and rarely, films like 'Taare Zameen Par'. My hearty applause to Amol Gupte, for his in-depth analytical script of the otherwise predictable story-line, and Aamir Khan, for his sensitivity in executing the beauty of the abyss.

No Smoking::: POINTs OF VIEW

People would slap me if I said that 'No Smoking' is a good film. In fact, had I constrained myself to watching this film only once, even I would slap myself if I said that it is a good film. But I watched it again for Anurag Kashyap, hoping there could be something I missed during the first watch. And, I liked it. Now, was it because of my already-accepted-the-bitterness mindset or was it because of the unusual execution involved in the film? Let me analyze….


========================
the story’s POINT OF VIEW
======================

“Everyday, thousands of people quit smoking, by dying…...”

‘K’ is obsessed with Smoking. Even in his bizarre dreams, where he is about to get killed, his last wish is to ‘have a cigarette’. Smoking forms his individual choice, his individual self and his individual compulsion; and also, his soul. His wife keeps nagging him to leave the injurious habit. He hardly cares. But, when she threatens with a divorce, he agrees to go through a mysterious treatment by a certain Baba-Bangali-‘proyogshala’.

His journey of experience in Baba-Bangali-prayogshala forms the crux of the remaining story. And in the end, ‘K’ has only two options to give up smoking: to die OR to submit his soul.


==================
my POINT OF VIEW
==================

‘No Smoking’ questions the difference between the two options ‘K’ ends up having. Or in other words, the film emphasizes the similarity between those two options.

The film is Anurag Kashyap’s ‘Point of View’ on how Reality treats a Hoard-Roark-ish man, when he, living by his individualistic rules, tries to go against those of the real world. Contrary to what I expected and perceived initially, this film has less to do with the ill-effects of Smoking! Smoking, as an injurious habit, though appears on the surface of the film, is just a thrown-at-a-corner string of the film. But at the end, it all sounds meaningful, at-least in my ‘Point of View’.

From my point of view, this film deals with the Battle between Self-Independence and Society’s Indulgence. Smoking may be an unhealthy habit, but it is also K’s assertion of independence. He does not want to leave it, just because the world around him wants to. If he leaves, it has to be his own choice, rather than that of others. But he never wants to leave smoking. On the contrary, he is so much addicted to it that, in his dreams, he fears of future situations when he may not be able to have a cigarette. So quitting smoking is out of the scope of his individual, independent choices. But how far will the society let him carry his self-independence? Family and friends, and several recognition-greedy, anti-smoking institutions pose several propositions against one’s independent smoking habit!

Even Rama, in Ramayana, has had to ignore his inner-voice and send Sita to exile, because the society has its own nagging ways of suspicions. According to religion, he who respects the society is Wise. And on that regard, Rama is considered The Wise Man. And in today’s world, many give away their soul to societal absurdities, probably, to get labeled as ‘Wise’!!!


======================
anurag’s POINT OF VIEW
======================

Further on a film-making perspective, ‘No Smoking’ is the Battle between Anurag Kashyap and the Society around him. It, in Anurag’s own words on his blog, is his most personal film. He made this film against all those peoples who have fire-walled Indian cinema, within narrow borders of romantic themes and colorful musicals. No Smoking, in almost every aspect, cross the borders and dwells mostly on the unseen territories of film-making. Check-out the usage of bath tub as K’s medium of transition between the real world and the surreal one. Smart and well-reasoned (it’s only when one relaxes, he/she can think about the things/world beyond the existing; and K relaxes mostly in his bath-tub)!!!! Or try to think about the narrative: fully fluid…. it has enough space in its density for a free audience interpretation. Each person may make his/her own… the narrative leaves such huge scope for a wide spectrum of perceptions. Kudos to Anurag’s script!!! As expected, the critics have slammed the film, because it doesn’t fall within the confines of their pre-set perceptions.

Through the film’s story, where K ends up submitting away his soul so as to survive, Anurag expresses his anguish over the current system, where he has less scope for his form of expression; and to survive in the system, he is compelled to dwell within the limitations devised by the influential peoples. But for ‘No Smoking’, Anurag hasn’t compromised with anyone or anything and his film did not give away its soul; thereby, got (physically) killed by the critics’ low rating…. i.e. out of the two options he had, he chose the first one for his film!!!!


========================
again, my POINT OF VIEW
======================

Having written the above, I don’t personally submit myself to the ideology that one must adhere only to one’s individualistic view and ignore the opposing society. From my point of view, independence may sound great, and even fashionable; but on a broader note, it is as injurious as Smoking. Self-reliance is good but when it leads to over-self-indulgence, it may result in self-destruction. There are always better ways of balancing life on an ‘Interdependence’ note. To understand better about Interdependence, fall in Love!!! Trust me…. Everything gets clear on why: more than an individualistically arrogant decision, a simple sacrifice leads to a better Life! One will understand why Rama’s decision to respect the society has a broader significance than one’s instinctive viewpoint that he has disrespected his chaste wife. Finally, one can realize that Soul is not about being independent, but respecting “your existence with others’ existence”.

After watching the film, one can also infer that, Anurag Kashyap has a wonderful knack of film-making. Not doubt of it!!! But he independently and individualistically, smoked! He arrogantly smoked a lot!!! Thus, at the box-office, his film burnt down to ashes. Smoking is Injurious!!!!


=====================================
for the audience and their POINT OF VIEW
==================================

Even if people would slap me, I prefer to stand by my soul: ‘No Smoking’ is a good film. But on my preference to recommend it to others, I prefer to step back. Barring my linguistic lapses, the above mentioned review should make one realize their own individualistic choice of watching the film.


==============================
from the credits’ POINT OF VIEW
===========================
John Abraham played ‘K’; Ayesha Takia, his wife and Paresh Rawal, Baba-Bangali!!
Vishal Sekhar provided the BGM and also co-produced the film!
Anurag Kashyap has written and directed this film.

=========================
the readers’ POINT OF VIEW
=======================
Slaps and Pats from each one’s point of view are heavily expected, eagerly anticipated and warmly welcome!!!!