Primal Fear (1996)

I return from nearly two weeks of silence with apologies. My end of term examinations are going on at the moment, which is leaving me completely burnt out. For better or worse I’m back and if you've read any of my earlier reviews you’ll know that I can whine on about how a film sucked or I can heap praise on films I loved. Well I could whine on for quite some time about how midway through Primal Fear you feel in your gut that this is a good movie, but it could have been much better.

Every time I try to be critical, people say I'm whining. Great Lord Ebert protect me from these creatures. 

Movies in Hollywood in the old days would be describable in seven words, something which hasn't changed over the years; in fact that was part of the pitch to producers. For example the 7 word treatment of Avatar is “Pocahontas with big blue aliens and humans”. For Primal Fear it is “Courtroom drama involving murderer and egomaniac lawyer”. For most of the movie it just plays just as that, a good courtroom drama, but nothing very special, especially for a person living on the 21st century. The story itself is simple. The murder of an Archbishop, a beloved member of the community, is the biggest story in the city. A hotshot lawyer, played by the smooth talking, silver haired Richard Gere, becomes the defense counsel for the alleged murderer, played by a very young and younger looking Edward Norton.

Richard Gere: proving that lawyers are always profitable, even if you're only playing them.

Now I will give you the reasons I found this movie good and not great or bad but just good, and since I’m still in exam mode I’m going to do it bullet points:
•Richard Gere gave a good performance, so did Laura Linney (the female lead). Frances McDormand (Fargo) also gives a standard-good-actress performance.
•Edward Norton delivers a fantastic bit of acting which I think launched him to fame. This is one of the people in the industry who should have won an Oscar by now. His act and more specifically his character keeps the show going.
•The script was pretty good. The direction and the editing were good. There were some electrifying scenes somewhere in the middle and right at the end of the film, but to balance it out the director must have deliberately kept a few scenes slow and crappy. For example: the crappy (I have no high brow English for you, I used it all up while bullshitting in my written exams) scenes between the two lead lawyers who just happen to have a romantic history behind them.

"Don't make me angry. I give away my parts to Mark Ruffalo when I'm angry."

In summation nothing particularly stands out in this movie except Edward Norton and the last five minutes of the movie. Over the years movies have developed something called the big reveal which has been brilliantly executed in the past in films like The Usual Suspects, The Prestige and The Illusionist. The reveal takes place in the last few minutes and usually blows your mind. And in that aspect I would rate Primal Fear ten out of ten for a marvelous reveal. 

IMDB rating: 7.6/10

My rating: 7.5/10

Soapbox Time: Amanda Todd and my three cents

I woke up today to a virtual shit-storm that had hid the internet a few hours ago. A teenager by the name of Amanda Todd had committed suicide. Amanda had visited internet chat rooms to meet new people and had flashed her breasts to a flatterer. A year later this person returned with a message on Facebook "If you don't put on a show for me I will send your boobs". She ignored the message. But this guy knew everything about her. The photo was sent to everyone she knew and thus began a life of cyber-bullying, schoolyard bullying, drinking, self harm (cutting) which finally culminated in a suicide.

Here is her story told through note cards by her:

The video brought a tear to my eye. My robot eye. The same eye that couldn't cry at his grandfather's funeral. I have never faced bullying to such a degree. But I wasn't always a gaunt six foot three guy who'll probably join you in making fun of himself and probably outdo you. A few years ago I was a scrawny five footer, easily moved to tears and hypersensitive. In boarding school. Life wasn't always great. I moved schools, gained some confidence, developed a shell and a self deprecating sense of humour. Now only very close friends know me as the clown Pirelli.

This wasn't Amanda's first attempt. She drank bleach the first time which only resulted in a visit to the hospital. Doesn't it sound fun when I say it like that? She failed in her first attempt but got it right in her second try. It sound s like she's an Olympic pole vaulter. And just like an Olympic pole vaulter she had to succeed in her attempts to get some recognition.

An incident like this always creates a lot of attention; the media and the hordes of mindless hash-taggers pounce on it and out come the accusations and the solutions. This particular incident has bred two kinds idiots. The first wants to raise awareness for Amanda and bullying. These jackasses are going to wear pink on Monday. To raise awareness! Like we don't know that bullying goes on. Like nobody f***ing know about it. Sure go ahead and raise awareness about breast cancer, educate people about it, raise money to fight it. Wearing pink for bullying isn't going to do shit. Except assuage your guilt. The people who were truly touched by this aren't going to wear pink. They are going to donate money, volunteer and push for change. You want to do something? Ask for new legislation that prevents this sort of thing.

Then there's the second kid of idiot. These arseholes agree with me about Idiot 1. They're not passive, they are active! They are going to change the world by talking to someone who is different from them, talking to the social outcast, talking to someone abnormal, talking to someone who is different and picked on.

They want to include them. To extend a hand of friendship towards them.

You know what's going to happen?

This human being will see the guilt and the pity in your eyes. And in that moment where you feel you are doing something monumental by putting your hand forward all they are going to see is a fake. A fraud that feels guilty and pity and feels that you need to talk to him to be "normal", to be accepted. This outcast usually feels worse than most people do because he/she is different, but today they'll feel worse than usual.

Thanks for the pity a**hole!

These social outcasts have friends too you know? It takes them longer to find someone like them, but when they do it's fantastic because finally they've found someone who understands them and allows them to be themselves around them.

Tell me, once you've befriended this abnormal awkward freak what then? Are you going to talk to this person regularly? What about the sensitive yet clueless people who'll see your hand of friendship and shake it with pleasure thinking to themselves they've finally found a friend. What happens to them a few weeks later when you've outgrown them or are too busy to talk to them or you find out you have nothing in common with them or you've forgotten all about Amanda Todd? Do you have any idea what it is going to do that person?

Why don't you get shoved into a confined place? Get called nasty names? Get beaten a few times? Then go and talk to them. You can bond over the abuse you've survived.

Don't huff and puff while you see the inaction and the passiveness and then race off to a half-baked half-assed plan to "include" someone different.

Think.

Feel.

Ask for stringent cyber-bullying laws that make sure that this does not happen again.

Come up with some good solutions. Some boundaries. At what point does it change from trolling or harmless fun to cyber bullying?

Should internet chat rooms be blamed? I often go these chat rooms to meet new people and discover new music and films. Blaming internet chat rooms would be like calling Taxi Driver a bad film because of that one loony who tried to assassinate the president to prove his love to Jodie Foster. Wouldn't it make more sense to publish guides to help teens understand the dangers of such chat rooms and the importance of some internet etiquette?

If you are going to talk someone you've ignored talk to someone who you like and connect with but you've been too scared to talk to because you friends make fun of him/her.

On Monday wear black or white to mourn Amanda Todd. Wear pink if you want to but follow it up with some action.

On a personal side note I would like to apologise to anyone who thinks I've bullied them. There were a few times I have taken my frustration out on someone else. I hope you forgive me. Bullying is a vicious cycle. I didn't know that a few years ago.

If you would like to disagree, shout your opinions, tell me to go shove a cactus up my anus or just talk and reminisce over the good old days when we got wedgies please comment below

RIP Amanda Todd. My condolences to the family.

Filmosophy: Barfi! vs Gangs of Wasseypur

I get very anxious when a highly anticipated movie is about to release. I fear that it will be ruthlessly panned just because it was wrongly or excessively marketed. Consider Blue for example. Had it been made without Akshay Kumar or Kylie Minogue in it, it could have saved a lot of money that was spent in buying these "brands". They could have spent it on better special effects and a better writer for that matter. But it seems they were not concerned about the quality anyway. They just wanted to sell a sub-standard product in the name of a big star. And I still don’t get it, why do these actors have to promote their movies to such an extent? Their presence is big enough an incentive. Such a waste of money for one big man’s stupid insecurity!

Think Jaws, but crappier.

Expectations, they spoil half the movies for me. They spoil more than half of your life. The concept of cognitive conditioning explains this phenomenon. Let’s say you watch an Alfred Hitchcock picture, a grade A thriller. And let us say it was your first thriller movie experience. You love it. You love the way the characters speak, the way the camera moves and the way the plot reveals itself seductively. You decide that thriller movies are your kind of movies. You then expect all thriller movies to the same for you, make you sit on the edge of you seat. So the next week when you buy a ticket for that seat, you do not expect yourself to slump on it halfway through the movie, bored. Now while nothing happens on the screen, you have the time to contemplate. Why would you think that this movie was going to be as good as the one you saw before? Did the plot promise that to you? Even if it did, why would you think that this director was as good as Hitchcock? And even if it was a Hitchcock movie, why would you think that this movie of his would be as good as his earlier work? Answer= because you did not think otherwise. Your experience(s) conditioned you to expect certain results and response when certain stimulus was inducted into the situation.

It is because of this that most movies are hated and panned, directors with a different vision of the genre- discouraged and shooed away. Scared of this, the businessmen funding these pictures coerce their writers to write something that is not very new, something that won’t find it hard to be accepted by the audience. It is because of our expectations we get exactly what we expected. And before long we start hating them for producing clichés. But what happens when we start expecting something new? This expectation is also based on an old experience. Maybe in the past, you were wooed by a movie that had attempted something new. This complex and fragile space in your mind, is what is targeted by the genius writers/directors of cinema. This is the only way they can survive while the producers still get to bank millions from their box office collections. This is the only way we all get to be happy. Sadly, these geniuses are few. What is good is that Indian cinema seems to have two latest examples- Anurag Basu and Anurag Kashyap.

Look at him smile. That talented bastard.

The theatrical of Barfi! was literally jaw dropping. I couldn’t help but admit that it belonged to international standards and no less. So, my expectations for the movie piled up, the factors being- the impressive cast, the experimental director and the big production values. Finally the time came when was finally sitting in the hall, waiting for the movie to start. After various jewellery commercials and well-timed theatrical teasers, the UTV montage finally made its appearance. The next thing that usually comes up is the silent and boring presentation of brand logos and media partners. But for the first time in my life I was happy and laughing my ass off during the logo presentation. Why? Because I was listening to an innovative idea of a song that told me what to expect from the movie. Before the actors came on screen, hell, even before the film title came on screen; the movie had won people’s hearts and a hard earned applause. The song is called “picture shuru” (the picture begins), which set the mood for the movie and as fellow movie buffs would agree, it celebrated the idea of watching movies in cinema halls. You won’t enjoy that moment on DVD or cam-prints, trust me.

Barfi! tells the story of a bubbly guy residing in Darjeeling. He is deaf and dumb, but definitely not dumb. He understands life more than we do. His disability gives him an opportunity to live life in silence and peace, to contemplate how he wants to live his life. The character makes us people feel stupid. Do we really need to talk so much? Do we really need to listen to people’s advices? Won’t life be much better the other way around, his way? Eyes speak a language more profound and in that manner, Barfi is a very talkative guy. And what happens when a guy like that falls in love? A wonderful experience of a movie, that’s what happens!

You have complaints? Well he can't hear them. (Yeah, we went there)

There were risks involved here- A non-linear screenplay, a Bollywood film-star acting deaf and dumb and one of the sexiest showgirls of the industry, acting autistic and not surrendering to item numbers. But they pulled it off. Why? Because they wanted to tell a simple story and you don’t really have to dance naked to do that.

The week after watching Barfi was spent enjoying the hangover, which also included listening to Pritam’s music, but then it was obviously not his, so I can forgive myself for that. It was then that a video went viral, accusing Barfi! of plagiarism and proving it. It was evident that Barfi! had incorporated scenes from Charlie Chaplin flicks and a few Korean movies. The video broke my heart. Not that I didn’t know those scenes were from Charlie Chaplin movies, just that the Indian audience is not prone to the concept of references in movies. And even if I believe that the scenes were "copied", I have to credit the movie for being so touching and moving. Surely, you cannot say the performances were plagiarized.

CNN. Reporting the Iraq war in a biased manner, asking reasonable questions about Indian cinema.

It’s been sometime since its release now. The Indian board has selected the movie for the foreign film category of the Oscars. And that is where the problem starts. The films running in competition were some regional films and mainstream Bollywood films, Kahaani, Gangs of Wasseypur and Heroine (why?!). Marketing helps. It provides a better chance for a movie to be taken seriously by the jury. So when you have good big budget movies, just because they earned well and were marketed better, they are preferred over the regional films, which are most of the times better. Makes sense to me. We are being realistic here.

Let us start with Kahaani. Supported by a terrific performance of the ever-awesome Vidya Balan, It was a first-rate thriller. But was it a great film? No. It was the kind of film which will be and should be the staple diet of Indian film goers in the near future. Genre-based films hardly make it that far and above in India, so that’s what the film needs to be applauded for.

Now let us talk about Fashion, oops Heroine. And let us end it here. (What? It was just another seasonal dose of Bhandarkar’s pessimism. Surely you don’t want me to discuss about characterless, weak girls who get caught up in the whirlpool of a deceptive and money-minded showman’s industry, where they have to sleep with people to get their bills paid. Forgive me, but the plot is so new I haven’t done enough homework to discuss it.)

He's going to the bank.

I have always felt that horror and gangster are the genres where you can experiment a lot in areas of technology and making. But when it comes to story, it has all been done. Scorsese, De Palma, Francis Ford Copolla (and even Guy Ritchie) have delivered the most and the best you can get from the genre. Bollywood’s tryst with gangster flicks hasn’t been bad either. Ram Gopal Verma, in the good old days, churned out some really gripping and ahead of its time crime cinema. Be it Satya, Company, Sarkar or even the recent Rakht Charitra for that matter, his cinema has always been about his style and he exploited it to the core. Now he overexploits it just because he’s got the moneys. Then it was Vishal Bhardwaj who rebooted Shakespeare’s Othello as a gangster drama of Hindi cinema. Omkara was a huge hit. Its star-cast, which was more prone to commercial cinema, made the movie famous with both Bollywood and niche audiences.

Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur is not in the same league. It’s better. Set in a chaotic little town in Bihar, this tale of gangsters has everything that a gangster movie needs- the golden days, the conflict, the violence and of course the swearing of revenge over the killing of a loved one. All this happens in the first half an hour of the movie. Now we are all set to enjoy the stylish slow motions, the making of strategies and the shocking deceptions. (Suddenly you say to your friend, “Wow this is going to be amazing! F*** you, I'm not going outside to buy popcorn! Not now!!”). The shocking deception is that the movie never does any of this. Yes, these bastards swear revenge and they just keep mentioning it every 15 minutes before slumping back into their car seats and driving around the town, looking for random people to kill. And that is the masterstroke.

The characters in Wasseypur are a bunch of losers who are wannabe gangsters. Unlike Puzo’s mafia, this sorry class of criminals is not born with a macabre mindset, but has learnt the notion of style from Amitabh Bachchan movies. Gangs of Wasseypur is a good movie if you look at it from a first timer’s point of view. Let’s go a little deeper. The gangsters here are not educated, they have nothing to do but satisfy their lust for violence and sex. Their family members are more concerned about the sitcoms based on family drama set in rich households: where women burdened with jewels walk around the house, hunting for trouble, which may sometimes be as grave as cold milk served to their husband by their daughter in law (who by the way is always dressed in an impeccable attire when it comes to serving breakfast to jobless people. Some family…) Anyway, I don’t want to go all Nolan in this article, fiction-in-a-fiction shit. Hey, what about the revenge? Yes, it is there in the back of their minds. Someday, when the opportune moment presents itself, they will take care of it.

There are different reasons for people loving a movie. For example, I doubt Barfi! is a success for its story, direction and depth of performances. No, I think its winning all that money because Ranbir Kapoor’s in it. Put a newcomer in his role and you would have never seen the movie climb the stairs of success, from the box office’s point of view. And it is the same for  Gangs of Wasseypur, people are loving the movie because it got a standing ovation in Cannes. Why did it get that ovation? That’s the real reason to love the movie.

Gangs of Wasseypur is full of humor. There is one whole chase sequence consisting of an intense dialogue about fruits. It could have been a stupid moment in a serious movie, but hey when something like this happens, it is not a serious movie. It’s based on real events and this shit is so damn real! I can imagine myself in that chase sequence, contributing my share of knowledge… about fruits. In another breathtaking chase sequence, we see a fat man in hot pursuit of a guy who just attempted to kill the fat man’s friend. This pursuit is carried out by sitting on a dilapidated, poor scooter. Then the chaser and the chasee both run out of fuel in their vehicles and the next moment they are both refuelling at the petrol pump, just looking at each other while their poor vehicles take rest. Isn’t that just hilarious? If not, wait till you watch it. And do watch it.

Two-wheeler sales have been down, Kashyap wants to give the market a boost.

Gangs of Wasseypur talks about revenge in a very real manner. People in this movie have no other motive but revenge. And that is their only motive of life, because they are good-for-nothing fellows, whiling away their time in a town that’s poor and undeveloped because it has given up to the whims of violent people with stolen money. Revenge is the protagonists’ ultimate motive and they would have nothing to do after that. Therefore it has to happen later.

The 5 hour epic saga is about people who can be called plain stupid by us educated lot. But what are we measuring them against? Against us? Do they even exist in the same world? They did. And they were not gun toting stylish mafia of the north, but a pitiful lot who drowned in their own stupidity, pulling down with them, a whole world of their own…  a world full of twisted ideologies about ethics, family and Bollywood.

Gangs of Wasseypur is not a better movie than Barfi! It’s a more distracted one. It is a more stupid one. It has far too many characters than it can handle. It has a screenplay that doesn’t satisfy its plot. And it is about people who don’t look remotely beautiful and as for their thinking it is far from beautiful. But I think that it would have been an ideal choice for the Oscars. Why? Because it’s more Indian than Barfi! is (I am not talking about plagiarism here). Gangs of Wasseypur is not a better movie than Barfi! It is just as good. But when it comes to a jury that looks at foreign films, Barfi! could be a film about anywhere. But Gangs of Wasseypur can only happen here in India, amidst its crooked politics and the mass psychology that is ignored. The film plays as a gangster movie, works as a family drama (also a comedy at times) and leaves you with anger in your heart, that you are too cheap for this world because there are just too many like you trying to ruin it. Simple economics.

Finally, it is common sense that if the Cannes jury appreciated it by giving it a standing ovation, surely the Oscar jury was also looking forward to watching Gangs of Wasseypur. But no, we had to take a chance. Now let us hope that they will forget India’s old friendship with plagiarism and treat them scenes as intelligent references. Highly unlikely? Cheers!

I pray to Morgan Freeman.

But then we all have a different way of looking at stuff. There will be many of you who might despise the film right from the beginning and shut it off in the first 20 minutes. That’s because you hated its character, its personality. Well, at least it has one. A good film must be judged on the basis of that. I could never watch Anurag Kashyap’s Dev-D in one go. Rather I think the movie is a pain. But I admire the movie for it never wanted to be anything else but that. It was supposed to act as a hangover, as guilt for the wrongs you committed, the medium was an old flawed character called Devdas.

The Indian audience has to do more than just criticizing the run-off-the-mill contemporary material that sucks to the core. We decide if we are intelligent enough to avoid films like Rowdy Rathore. Why then do we settle to watch it, just because there’s Akshay Kumar in it? Why do we go and watch Tees Maar Khan, for its item number “Sheila ki jawaani”? You see even if you criticize the movie, you do it after watching it. The producers are still earning their money back. They will make another piece of crap for you to analyze. You will pay them to analyze it. Analyze that. We pay the same amount of money for both Rowdy Rathore and Barfi!, then why do we get different levels of satisfaction out of them?

Admittedly, Akhsay Kumar would look funnier doing that.

Maybe, we are too busy earning our money, so we don’t give much of a damn while spending it on a no-brainer, thus wasting it. Settling to watch a bad movie for an item number is like buying a car with good seat covers but no steering wheel.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

I have always been keen to watch movies, good ones or much awaited ones, on the very first day of their release. I like to watch the very first show. I give myself a false sense of superiority and gain some enjoyment seeing a film before anyone else. Sometimes not only do I get to experience the pleasure of watching the film before others, but I also get to tell the ones who didn't show much interest to begin with that there was a film they could watch. A good film. A film to look out for. This is one of those films.

A quick plot review makes it sound like one of the many post-Scorsese gangster tales which involve a lot of well written moderately profound dialogue and some stylized violence. Here's the IMDB blurb Jackie Cogan is a professional enforcer who investigates a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game. 

I went in expecting a heist gone wrong. I expected Brad Pitt to be the stone cold ruthless assassin type, great for action sequences imparting wisdom in forty words and two pop culture references. I expected Ray Liotta to be a mob boss getting riled up and spitting out his words at the camera.

A few of my wishes came true. What I truly witnessed was an allegorical tale of the recession. An economy supported by gambling breaks down. Troops are sent in to rectify the situation and bring the economy back to its feet. But the troops aren't as effective as expected. Beneath a layer of cool criminal speak lies an essay on America and the events that unfolded during the time period of the 2008 presidential campaigns.

What enhances the film and its core idea are the writing, the direction and the cinematography. The cinematography is superb. I wouldn't be surprised if the cinematographer got a nod come Oscar season.  A few scenes stand out in my head; a character injects himself with heroin, a character gets shot. The writing and the direction are intelligent and well paced. The acting is top notch. Brad Pitt is stellar as usual and Scoot McNairy gives an authentic performance.

I had one complaint. I greatly admire the use of allegory in film. But sometimes the allegorical elements are too blunt. District 9 was subtle with its references to apartheid. This film is just too ham fisted with the direction at a few points. The allegory is not there for us to pick up. It's hammered home, repeatedly. And that ticks me off, a little.

All in all a good film. One of the better ones of this year. The film  has the potential to remain a good film or to be hyped as a great film as it deals with issues close to America (remember The Hurt Locker? Neither do I).

IMDB Rating: 7.3/10

My Rating: 7.5/10

Watch it in the theater? Yeah, it's good.

OMG Oh My God! (2012)

Today I succumbed to boredom and watched a Hindi movie. Why don't I watch Hindi movies? Before you Hindi speakers start commanding that not only should I know Hindi but I should watch plenty of Hindi movies here are a few reasons (in bullet points):

• I cannot comprehend Hindi completely. I need a friend to translate some of the more difficult (shudh Hindi) words. I am from West Bengal. We speak Bengali there. You know, one of the other 18 official languages of India.
• Hindi films are just not as good as international cinema. Notice here that I said international cinema and not Hollywood. There are many great Hindi films out there. But I found out that it takes me a larger amount of time researching the quality of a newly released Hindi film than to actually watch the film.
• Even films with different concepts and/or new ideas have the same formulaic crowd pleasing shit shovelled into the script.
• Too much plagiarism.
• Too many songs.
• Overall corniness.

As you can see I have my reasons for not watching Hindi films. However, today I went out of tedium and my love of Paresh Rawal.

The film begins like a generic comedy. It generates chuckles from the juxtaposition of a religious background, devout wife and a holy idol and stature shop, against the atheist shop owner Kanji Bhai (Paresh Rawal). I was prepared to walk out of the movie when I heard the Prabhudeva-led item number "Go Govinda". I believed that was the movie subtly telling me and my godly friend Govinda (a.k.a. Krishna) to get the hell out of there as it was going to get painful. 

A few minutes later I was thankful that I'd not left as the movie had swiftly descended into one of my favourites, religious satire. Kanji Bhai disrupts a religious festival and is cursed by a Hindu priest. His shop is destroyed and the insurance company refuses to reimburse him for his losses as the earthquake that destroyed his shop was an "act of God".

It is here that Paresh Rawal gives a marvellous performance as a non-believer. And Mithun Chakraborty proves that he's still got it as he lampoons religious cult leaders with all their quirks and vanities. This film had me hook, line and sinker, the dialogue was funny, thoughtful and logical. 

Suddenly a wild Akshay Kumar appears! 

And I felt that the film had lost me. What could have been a ground breaking film descended into the murky waters of "this is India, so no atheism allowed". You see, in a film that challenged the very existence of God the filmmakers decided to introduce God.

Overall I have to say that I liked the film. It put forward some well written arguments. It challenged Big Religion and all the scams, rackets and insanity that went along with it. But I kept thinking that this film could have been much better without God making an appearance. It could have been a spectacular struggle of man against society and his eventual hard won triumph. It was the struggle of man against society and his eventual hard won triumph. The spectacle was cheapened by God's arrival. This film asks the right questions but it falls short. This is the sort of film that should teach a person to question their beliefs. To think and question instead of blindly following. To offer a different point of view. What it does is question our rituals and our inane practices. It tells us to not fear but love God. It does a good job of that. 

I'd hoped that it would question God too.

IMDB Rating: 8.9/10 (sometimes you shouldn't trust IMDB, this is one of those times)

My Rating: 6.5/10

Should you watch it: Yeah, why not? It is funny. And for the atheists/agnostics who like me had hoped for more, here's a George Carlin routine that never gets old: