Who needed this retelling again?

The Attacks of 26/11 is too chilling, too gory, too disturbing for my liking. I’m not sure if Ram Gopal Varma’s showcase of that terrible night needed to be a part of cinematic history at all…not this way at least.

It’s true that making a film on a real-life occurrence was always going to be an uphill task, more so when it involved the grim tragedy in question. But that has nothing to do with my inherent feeling to constantly ask the filmmaker why: Why did I need to see this film when I already had a second-by-second more detailed account from the 24x7 news channels as and when it happened and even post that? Why did I need to see women and worse, indications of children being shot when I already know from newspapers, of the way this blasphemy unfolded? What did we achieve by bringing to the forefront once again the helplessness, the terror, the sheer sadness that is enveloped in the director’s over-fascination with blood and gore?

The film recounts incidents in flashback narrated by Nana Patekar who essays the role of the then Joint Chief Police Commissioner of Mumbai, Rakesh Maria. Patekar was the one aspect of the film, one could have bet would be top-class. Sadly, he is not. The actor is reduced to really slow dialogue delivery and long-drawn preaching of secularism. Sanjay Jaiswal as Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab is eerily similar, in looks, to the slain terrorist and is promising, as an actor, in parts. But mostly he and the actors enacting the other terrorists are just shown wide-eyed with a menacing smile.

In parts, mostly towards the beginning of the film, RGV does succeed in building a sense of dread. You know what’s going to happen and yet you’re almost wishing it doesn’t!

And then you remember Varma accompanying the then Maharashtra CM Vilasrao Deshmukh’s entourage to Taj Mahal Hotel (Mumbai), on a damage survey he had no right to be on. He may have cried hoarse denying that it had anything to do with film research, and yet here you have it: a dry, filmi, pointless account of 26/11; patent RGV style.

Note: This review first appeared in the March 2 edition of The Financial World.

You can view it here: http://thefinancialworld.com/epaper/fwepaper.aspx
and here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=548551491832697&set=a.548550998499413.1073741830.480546275299886&type=3&theater

Jab Tak Hai Jaan... or till you fall asleep

ALL OF last week, I had been trying to make a pact with the filmi god (and I do believe there is one) all of last week: ‘let Jab Tak Hai Jaan be a Yash Chopra classic,’ I prayed fervently, ‘let me not have a chance to critique the last film of a filmmaker who’s no more, let me not dislike his love saga when I equate everything romance in real life off his films’. Alas that prayer went unanswered, JTHJ is not what you want it to be, it’s not that epic Yash Chopra story, it’s not a fitting end. That’s painful but that’s the truth.

I am at a loss to figure why JTHJ was made in the first place. Veer Zaara was a good film for Yashji to hang up the director’s hat with. It wasn’t his best once again, but it had those glimpses…of those mustard fields, dialogues that left you misty-eyed or giddy…that feel-good feeling of unbelievable love that lasts forever…when we get foolishly optimistic about the concept of soul-mates.

All this is missing from JTHJ. And in a three-hour-plus film that offers nothing (no humour, no action, not even great songs) but romance, a weak love story was never going to amount to anything. In the first half, its 2002 and Samar Anand (SRK) is a struggling musician/waiter/odds-and-ends worker in London struggling to make ends meet. Katrina is Meera, rich to the hilt, born with one of those diamond-encrusted spoons. Meera’s character is not really delved upon perhaps because there isn’t much worth showcasing. Except for the times when she wants something, then Meera is shown as deeply religious, often asking for wishes in lieu of sacrifices: a good result in return for chocolates, a perfect life partner in return for kicking her smoking habit.

Before you have a chance to say hmm, the two fall in love. But Meera can’t commit to Samar because she has to marry the guy her Dad (Anupam Kher in his most miniscule role ever) has chosen for her. Why you ask? Because Meera’s mom left them when she was 12 and her father has always given her everything. Uhh, ok. So here I’m thinking, right so this is going to be a ‘lets convince the dad saga’. I was wrong. Meera still pursues her romance with Samar and one day finally musters to tell her dad the truth. But Samar has an accident, so Meera makes a deal with God and gives up Samar in exchange for his life.

Fast-forward ten years later, Samar has become Major Samar Anand, part of the Indian army’s bomb disposal squad. His antics are legendary, he defuses bombs without even a bomb suit. If you can forgive the bloopers of SRK keeping a stubble through most of his bomb-defusing jaunts (army officers are not allowed to) and the fact that the number of bombs he defuses in a day makes it seem that we’re in a state of terrible war, this is the decade you’ll enjoy.

And a lot, actually the complete, credit goes to Anushka Sharma. As the spunky 21-year-old aspiring documentary filmmaker, Anushka as Akira is freshness, fun and frank.

Now this love story I could have got.

In terms of acting, Katrina does a Kristen Stewart through most of her parts. Happy or sad, confused or passion-struck…there’s one solitary expression that lasts the entire saga. SRK as a 25-year-old is not young enough. The age is catching up and now so should the roles. But we forgive him for donning those combats, keeping that stubble and wearing those aviators. Oh heart, calm down…

In his filmmaking, Yash Chopra captured pulsating hearts and dreams of lovers transcending generations. Love does transcend a lot in JTHJ too but I fail to understand why. Why does SRK love Katrina? Why does he love her so much? Why is Katrina such a fool? Why does it take her 10 years to understand something that at best required 10 seconds? Why did the hurdles of love seem so easily solvable? Why indeed.

Loving Jab Tak Hai Jaan is fine…but what if one falls asleep before that! Is it a film badly made? No, but it does break your heart for all the wrong reasons.

Note: This review first appeared in the 15 November edition of  FW

Personal Note: I shall now go and curl up in my quilt for actually not liking Yash Chopra's last film...

End of the love saga in Yash Chopra's passing

He captured pulsating hearts and dreams of lovers transcending generations. Romance may never find its Yashraj expression again...

The man who made us fall in love with romance is no more. Roughly three weeks before the release of his last directorial venture, Jab Tak Hai Jaan, filmmaker Yash Chopra succumbed to dengue fever at the Lilavati hospital in Mumbai on Sunday evening. He had been admitted there on 13 October. He was 80.

It would be difficult to summarise Yash Chopra and his filmmaking in just a few words. Do we delve on the innumerable dialogues - some heart-touching, some heart-wrenching - that most of us know by heart? Should we highlight the classic Yash Chopra heroine, in pastel chiffons, sometimes dancing in the mustard field and sometimes twirling on the Swiss Alps. Or should we just marvel at the myriad of topics touched?

Chopra was born on 27 September 1932, the youngest of eight children. He grew up close to his elder brother, filmmaker BR Chopra, and it was with him that Yash Chopra got his first directorial opportunity with the film Dhool Ka Phool in 1959, starring Mala Sinha and Rajendra Kumar.

The story of a Muslim man bringing up an illegitimate Hindu child, the film was a surprise hit. It also set the tone for most of Chopra’s films that followed; high on emotional drama and mostly ahead of their time.
Whether it was the 1965 Waqt, which became one of Indian cinema’s first multi-starrers with an ensemble cast including Sunil Dutt, Raaj Kumar, Shashi Kapoor, Sadhana, Balraj Sahni, Madan Puri, Sharmila Tagore, or the 1991 Lamhe that captured the romance between an older man and a young girl with such sensitivity. Lamhe did not enjoy commercial success in India. But over the years the film has been hailed as a classic. It was featured in Outlook magazine’s list of All-Time Great Indian films.

And then there were the down and out artistes such as Rajesh Khanna and Shah Rukh Khan, who Yash Chopra turned into superstars overnight with blockbusters like Daag and Darr. It was his Deewar (1975) that established Parveen Babi as the liberated Bollywood woman setting the trend for many more such roles for actresses in Hindi cinema. Deewar also cemented the success of writing duo Salim-Javed, who went on to write many more blockbuster films, becoming one of the most memorable writer duo in Hindi cinema. Deewar’s success, it is said, is what made Bollywood sit up and start taking its writers seriously.

Would we have known SRK as supposedly ‘Bollywood’s best lover boy’, had there been no Yash Chopra? Khan earned commercial success with Abbas Mastan’s Baazigar but it was his portrayal of an obsessed lover in Darr (1993) that made him an actor to reckon with.

Jab Tak Hai Jaan would have been Chopra’s last in a career spanning more than 50 years that saw him winning six National Film Awards and 11 Filmfare awards. He is survived by his wife Pamela and sons Aditya and Uday.

Chopra does leave behind a void in film-making. He wielded his director’s baton with such élan that the Yash Chopra style became moniker in itself. Mush was never more mushy and probably never will be again.


Note: This article first appeared in the 22 October edition of FW

Nothing wrong with mindless fun!

I HAVE to confess, I didn’t go in to watch Student of The Year (referred to as SOTY henceforth) with much, make that any, expectations. Can you blame me for not looking forward to a tennybopper film based out of a college that looks like the poshest of the posh hotels, where the female (teen) protagonist carries around varied hues of only the most-expensive handbags on this planet, where the male leads were brandishing their eight-packs and not their 8.0 GPAs.

Yes, SOTY is all this and even more, it is corny and unbelievable to the core. But it is also directed by Karan Johar and by god K Jo can make corny fun. So he gives us a story of love and friendship in the times of college: Shanaya (Alia Bhatt), Rohan (Varun Dhawan) and Abhimanyu (Sidharth Malhotra) are three different individuals looking for different things while standing on that tough road of life called growing-up. Rohan and Abhimanyu come from different walks of life, but after a rocky start become best friends. Shanaya is the most popular girl in school but is still not the happiest. Their intertwined story of highs and lows is of course what makes up the film. And at roughly three hours it’s a long film. But a flow to the story (even though there’s a lack of it) and a brilliant soundtrack ensure that those 180 minutes are quite a breeze.
There was another apprehension I went in with: three brand new actors, three young, a little boring first-impression making actors. Were we going to once again cry when they laugh and laugh when they cry (a la Nargis Fakhri).

But hold on, these guys can act. No really, they actually can. There’s something about Alia Bhatt: she’s not drop-dead gorgeous, she doesn’t have the long legs and the sculpted figure, what she does have in abundance is an endearing quality that’s part-Lolita and part-child.

Now to the most embarassing confession, but one that I’ve been ensured I wasn’t alone at: I could never tell apart the two male leads (Sidharth Malhotra and Varun Dhawan) all this time that the songs and the promos have been all over the place. They were tall and brawny and chiselled; but I couldn’t figure out anything beyond that. But yes they are different and quite so. Sidharth as scholarship student Abhimanyu is fresh-faced and very likeable. He’s also very drool-worthy for those aged between 13-30. But it is Varun Dhawan who really steals the film. Varun is a natural. He was born to filmmaker David Dhawan, and the acting gene shows. It doesn’t seem to be the first film for any of the three, which is a good thing. Because this certainly won’t be the last we see of them.

Johar’s SOTY won’t win film of the year, it won’t impress the sternest of critics or the tutting intellectuals. But come on, can’t we for once enjoy something just in the name of mindless fun?


Note: This review first appeared in the 20 October edition of FW

V for vague

So Vogue sent in a preview of their five covers celebrating five years of us talking in Vogue language! Sigh, I remember the times I used to splurge on Femina, then Cosmopolitan, and oh yes Elle...the 50 rupee price tag used to seem so extravagant :p 

So here are those covers, ranked in an order we liked most, based purely on the look and not the designer tag. 

P.S. Forget the whole 5 actors, 5 covers thing...its slightly tried and tested...but we are severely disappointed at the absence of them in Indian attire...it is five years of 'Indian' Vogue after all!

Priyanka: Best figure hands down. Gorgeous gown check. Gold check. Smoky makeup check.

Deepika: Only her tall, lean frame could have carried off those embossed flowers so non-garishly.

Anushka: We don't loooveeee it...but then you haven't seen the other two! A classic case of pick the lessest (yes we know its not a word) evil.

Katrina: Did someone lose Snow-ick-white?

Sonam: It's the pose, the general discomfort coming across and the feeling of deja vu that makes us yawn at this cover. Just how many blah dee blah designer gowns can one see SK in?



Which one is your favourite? Write in to us, the only condition being that the comments should be funny/fun. Now here's the million-dollar question: Where the oops is Kareena 'heroine' Kapoor? I smell a filmi story here.

Covers credit: Vogue

A film for someone we all know...

Sridevi’s done it, oh yes she has…in a film that rests solely on her shoulders, playing a character that proudly claims her age and with the aid of no dance-numbers. Now how many comebacks can boast of that? None that we remember. In an era where comebacks almost always spell big, bigger, biggest…Sridevi chose a role that has substance over glamour. 

We don’t mean to sound so giddy, but in between fighting back tears, laughter and rolling on the floor…Sridevi took us on a rollercoaster into a world where good films don’t have a formula or 100 crore tags…they just make do with scripts that make sense, a story that needs telling, handled in a manner that could potentially describe the word mature.

Sridevi plays Shashi Godbole…a loveable, doing right by everyone housewife who spends her days making life comfortable for her family and her spare time dishing out gourmet delights. Only all she gets in return is mirth from her husband because just how difficult can making ladoos be and disgust from her daughter who thinks of her mother’s non-english speaking skills as potent embarrassment.

It really hits home because really haven’t we all seen this everyday everywhere…husbands not taking their brimming with wives talent seriously, a cringe here and there when you hear or see English misspelt or god forbid mispronounced. These people are you and these people are me, who’ve made language a meter of judging our ‘coolness’.

Sridev and Dreamboat (Mehdi Nebbou)

A family wedding take Shashi to New York and a humiliating incident in a café later, she joins English-speaking classes. Amongst people from different walks of life and countries, Shashi learns the language and more importantly the confidence to not really care about a thing like language. 

She also learns how to love herself, thanks to French classmate and chef Laurent (with someone who looks like Laurent, we’d be willing to learn Newton’s laws). Director Gauri Shinde has cast Mehdi Nebbou, a French-Algerian actor so right, you want Sridevi to not do the ‘right’ thing in the end…oh well a girl can always dream right?

Full marks have to be awarded to the casting of English Vinglish. Absolutely no one is a sore thumb, even the sole cameo (Amitabh Bachchan) is such an apt fit. The only disappointment, and we really had to scrounge around for this one, is the music. The supremely talented Amit Trivedi delivers some pretty lacklustre fare, that doesn’t really connect in an otherwise emotional story.     

If this is Gauri Shinde’s first film and if this is what she can do with it, oh boy gimme more!   

For the love of God, watch 'Oh My God'

A few days ago, a flummoxed Paresh Rawal rued the inclusion of an item song in his first production. He couldn’t fathom why an otherwise small budget film would need a large chunk spent just on that song. And you know what? He was a 100 percent, resoundingly right. There was nothing wrong with ‘Go Govinda’, but if ruling out that song would have given me five more minutes of Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar, by god I would have taken it any day. Having said that, equally true is the fact that the inclusion of the item number lends more mass appeal OMG Oh My God, thus expanding its chances of better box-office returns. It is these returns, which will pave way for more such small but meaningful productions, which are truly god’s gift (no more puns, I promise) in this era of Rs 100-crore tortures.

OMG (we’ll be adopting the abbreviation henceforth) is based on the 2001 Australian comedy The Man Who Sued God and the Gujarati play Kanji Viruddh Kanji. It narrates the story of Kanjilal Mehta, a staunch atheist, who earns his living by selling religious idols. Life is smooth as Kanjilal goes on with his business unabashedly choosing convenience over forced faith, reason over blind belief. But when an earthquake levels his shop to the ground and the insurance company refuses to grant him his claim, citing the quake to be an act of God, Kanjilal goes ahead and sues God.

Such a delicate topic in a god-fearing country like ours needed a treatment equivalent to that meted out to fragile glass. Director Umesh Shukla achieves that, with support from an able cast that understands that.

It’s a Paresh Rawal film through and through, a four-minute item song lasts only that long. And my god, he delivers (Ok, now it was really required). Akshay Kumar as Krishna Vasudeva Yadav aka Lord Krishna in a dapper, tech-savvy, riding a batmobile-like (only its white) avatar is so refreshing. He has also produced the venture along with Rawal. Bless you dear Akshay.

OMG works because it’s teaching without preaching. And it targets everything that’s wrong with religion today, religion not god. 

For too long we’ve lived with the ‘he visits a mandir everyday, he’s a good boy’, ‘she didn’t keep that fast, that’s blasphemy’ thumb rule. 

The film doesn’t question the existence of Jesus, Ram, Allah…it questions the mela that surrounds faith in god around the world, and India, in particular. Never has religion been a bigger multi-crore industry, and yet never have we been a race so dissatisfied.

We floated away from the film feeling closer to the thought of being connected to a power divine, and not stressing about the dos and donts of the almighty.

OMG Oh My God has a lot to say, listen to it with an open heart and mind. After all, isn’t that also a message prescribed especially by God.