Revisiting Mumbai, RGV style

While Indian crime films has been around for a few decades, they remain relatively unknown in North America outside of the Indian community. Until the late 1980's, the crime flicks were not really considered a pure genre per say as they were mixed with other genres such as action/revenge flicks. That changed in 1989 when the genre started to take form when Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s Parinda broke new ground with its ruthless portrayal of the Mumbai underworld. The film still stands tall with its story of two brothers whose lives are under the watch of a ruthless yet emotionally fragile gangster. The memorable characters were played by Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Madhuri Dixit and ofcourse Nana Patekar whose portrayal as the gangster “Anna” stole the show. Almost a decade later in 1998, Ram Gopal Varma ushered in the next phase of gangster films, first with Satya and then followed by Company. Dozens of other Mumbai based gangster films then followed, directed either by Ram Gopal Varma’s protégés or first time directors. Yet, query an average North American film critic and he/she will not know any of these films or filmmakers. Danny Boyle probably never heard of any of these film-makers either until he started work on Slumdog Millionaire. Boyle has admitted being influenced by Ram Gopal Varma while filming Slumdog Millionaire but influenced is too light of a word because most of the slum shots in Slumdog.. are identically framed to those found either in Satya or Company. It seems that while Danny Boyle is busy getting praises for showing the "real India", the few decades of groundwork laid by talented Indian directors is being ignored. Ofcourse, there are exceptions as David Bordwell and Noel Vera noticed these similarities. Most critics in India noticed this right away and Deepa Gahlot is just one of them.

When compared to Parinda, Satya, Company and even to the marvelous Black Friday, Slumdog.. is weaker and unable to hold its own. On a positive note, Boyle's feature has a vibrant look as opposed to the darkish atmosphere of most Indian crime films, especially any RGV production. Slumdog.. can also boast to have utilized A.R Rahman’s music as most Indian gangster films don’t feature any of Rahman’s soul stirring pieces. In fact, Rahman has never composed for any of RGV’s gangster flicks.

I had wanted to take a closer at Indian crime films since last year but didn’t get around to it. So as a way of making amends, here’s a quick look at Ram Gopal Varma’s Satya and Company.

---

Satya -- darkness with a touch of morality

"Mumbai..." A city that never sleeps, a city that dreams while being awake...

One can lose track of how many Bollywood films start with words along those lines. Most films are compelled to explain how Mumbai is the place where newcomers come to to fulfill their dreams or how the city is like a ruthless animal that chews up people everyday. As such words are narrated on the screen, one can see images of the city.

One will see slums or poverty but the camera will not be obsessed with that aspect of the city but will instead use these settings as backgrounds for dissecting the lives of the characters.


We are normally introduced to the main character right at the start of the narration, which is what happens in this film as well. The title character of Satya is played by J.D. Chakravarthi. (note: this picture is from a later point in the film).


In the film's context, Satya isn't a hero. In fact, there are no heroes in this film just shades of grey and dark. In Parinda most people would cite the role of the main gangster (Anna played by Nana Patekar) as the most memorable, similarly in Satya the real show stealer is Manoj Bajpai as the gangster Bhiku Mhatre. Bhiku Mhatre is the type of role that is called career defining and amazingly a decade after playing the role, Bajpai has never been able to get away from the shadow of Bhiku Mhatre.

It doesn't take Satya too long to cross paths with the underworld. His friendship with Bhiku saves him but also makes him a marked man. The following shot is another one found in most crime films as the villains (or heroes depending on your viewpoint) overlook the wonderful city and discuss their lives or talk of conquering the city.


Vidya, the girl next door played by Urmila Matondkar.


There was a time when it was impossible to think Ram Gopal Varma could ever make a film without Urmila but he has moved on. In Satya, Urmila's character is the voice of reason, the pure uncorrupted woman who falls for Satya. But once she learns of his underworld ties, she abandons him.


The rest of the gang. Saurabh Shukla also co-wrote the film and features as Kallu mama.

Alcohol is not too far from most shots in such films and neither is the police torture room. In fact, a gangster film has yet to be made without a trip to the jail cell.


Most people would not know who Makrand Deshpande is as he usually only gets a few minutes role in most Bollywood films. But he makes each second count and his presence in a movie is always a good sign for me.

Overall, Satya was an amazing collaboration where everything clicked -- the screenplay, the technical aspects, the music which was intense when it needed to be and tender on other occasions, and the acting ofcourse. Although the weakest acting was probably the title role of Satya.

The downside of Satya's success was that every gangster film tried to imitate it and even RGV tried to use a similar template in his other gangster films.

---

Company -- Phones and Guns

While Satya had a moral compass in the form of Urmila's character who believed that crime didn't pay, Ram Gopal Varma removed any concept of morality from Company. His film showed that a life of crime is seductive not only to women who sought out gangsters but also for the police who admired the gangsters. In the film, the honest inspector played by Mohanlal

actually admires the friendship between the main gangster Mallik (Ajay Devgan),

and his friend turned rival Chandu (Vivek Oberoi).


The film shows how cell phones allow gangsters to remotely run their business via locations such as Kenya or other parts of Asia. The main gangsters, Mallik and Chandu, leave India as they are on the run but all they have to do is make a call back to Mumbai for their hunch-men to carry out the orders. Which is why the latter half of Company features shots of someone either on the phone or someone getting shot. Even while Chandu is in prison, he is handed a cell so he can talk with Mallik. And naturally the film ends with the constant ringing of phones.

The rapid fast communication via cell phones also leads to a lot of mistaken killings as the lack of face to face meetings leads to plenty of misunderstandings.

Vivek Oberoi made an impressive acting debut in Company but his character still paled compared to Bhiku Mhatre.


The following shot from Company can be found in Slumdog... In fact, the slanted camera angles from Company are seen quite a bit in some of the slum chase scenes in Slumdog..


Overall, Company is not bad but it is a lesser film compared to Satya.

---

One bothersome aspect of Ram Gopal Varma's films is that he takes real life gangsters and drafts films around them, while refusing to openly admit that but still giving enough clues as to his inspirations. For example, he directed Company in 2002 and then his production company released D. in 2005. Put the two titles together and you get D Company, the real life crime gang. Fans of RGV droll over the reality that his films show but there isn't much reality but glorification of the gangster life. I wish that RGV one day makes gangster films which have nothing do with real life criminals so that way he can finally make a true gritty film without being afraid of any consequences. Ofcourse, I am assuming the reason he portrays the gangsters as cool is because he does not want to anger the real life gangsters.

Bollywood Hype x 3

Billu Barber (2009, Priyadarshan)

So much for the controversy regarding the title. Even though the title has the word "barber" in it, the film actually utilizes barely ten minutes of the character’s profession. Sure there are scenes in a barber shop but it could easily have been set in a chai stall or a corner store. There is a warm hearted story hidden in this film but like most bollywood films the final product is ruined because of needless songs and producer intervention. In this case since the producer is Shah Rukh Khan, the film ends up being an ode to a best of SRK’s filmi moments. In Billu Barber SRK plays Sahir Khan, a mega Bollywood star. Even though SRK takes on a different first name, he still manages to insert clips and posters from most of his films in Billu Barber and uses his “King Khan”. When he is not busy promoting himself, SRK also uses the film to clarify his positions regarding the rivalries with Aamir Khan and Akshay Kumar. It is hard to know if a different director would have had the strength to prevent SRK from hijacking the film and making it into a self-promotion tool. The only recent exception seems to be Shimit Amin whose Chak De India managed to prevent SRK from hogging the camera and gave the young actresses a chance to shine but there are plenty of other directors in Bollywood like Farah Khan, Aditya Chopra or Karan Johar who pander to SRK’s every need. It is unfortunate to see Priyadarshan’s name added to that list now.

Another disappointing aspect of the film is that Priyadarshan took the easy way out and borrowed elements from his Malamal Weekly film, another comedy set in a village and tried to implement a similar style of comedy with identical themed jokes. The only saving grace of the film is Irrfan Khan and a charming Lara Dutta. Even though all the songs are quite bad, Deepika Padukone looks stunning in the opening video. Ok, stunning does not do justice. She sizzles...while the rest of the film is stuck in averageness.

Rating: 5.5/10

---

Luck, by Chance (2009, Zoya Akhtar)

Over the last decade or so there have been quite a few films made about the cut throat and ruthless nature of the Bollywood film industry such as Rangeela, Main Bhi Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Houn, Om Shanti Om, Khoya Khoya Chand, Superstar, Bollywood Calling and King of Bollywood. These films were either in the form of a parody or even tried to show the serious side of things. Plus there were also two very good documentaries such as Bollywood Bound and Sunset Bollywood. Was there place for one more film to be added to this list? Zoya Akhtar thought so and decided to try her luck by setting her debut film about Bollywood’s film studio system. Unfortunately, her film has nothing new to add to the existing view of tinseltown. In fact, her film verifies all the cliches and images people have about Bollywood. There are some moments of genuine delight in the film but in the end Zoya takes the easy way out and reduces her film to a tabloid gossip tale of stardom and affairs. Sure there are some inside jokes and some real life Bollywood actors play a parody of themselves such as Sanjay Kapoor and Dimple Kapadia. But overall, the film is a run of the mill effort and not something one would expect from someone whose family has been involved with some memorable efforts in Indian cinema.

Rating: 7/10

---

Chandini Chowk to China (2009, Nikhil Advani)

Akshay Kumar’s Singh is Kinng was one of the most hyped Bollywood films of 2008 and it also turned out to be one of the worst films of 2008. And Akshay Kumar’s Chandini Chowk.. kicked off Bollywood’s 2009 calendar year with as much hype but thankfully the film is not as inept as Singh is Kinng was. Even though Chandini Chowk.. is B-grade film that brings back memories of the worst of Bollywood from the 1970’s and 80’s, the film does contain a few hilarious scenes where Akshay Kumar is able to show why he is the current comedic master in Bollywood.

Rating: 4/10

Bollywood: 2008 Best Film List

Top 10 films

1) Oye Lucky Lucky Oye (Dibakar Banerjee)

Dibakar Banerjee's second feature is a rare thing -- an intelligent entertaining comedy! Plus Abhay Deol puts in a wicked performance while the little details in good old Delhi are captured perfectly.

2) Rock On (Abhishek Kapoor)

Dreams and friendships are easy to come by in one's youth but as one gets older both start to fade away when the everyday realities of job and money demands attention. Given those sentiments, Abhishek Kapoor does a fine job of capturing the essence of relationships in his second directorial feature [note: correction added. Thanks Nitesh]. Plus the excellent vocals of Farhan Akhtar and the touching performance of Arjun Rampal easily make this one of the best films of the year.

3) Mumbai Meri Jaan (Nishikant Kamat)

A heartwarming film about a few characters trying to deal with the aftermath of the Mumbai train blasts in 2006. The film starts off perfectly when a discussion over Zidane's sending off in the World Cup final turns into a debate about Muslim brotherhood and ends on a tender note with a minute of silence to the tune of Mohammed Rafi & Geeta Dutt's beautiful song yeh hai Bombay meri jaan..

4) Mithya (Rajat Kapoor)

Bollywood's talented gang of 4 (Rajat Kapoor, Saurabh Shukla, Ranvir Shorey & Vinay Pathak) rope in Naseeruddin Shah and Neha Dhupia in this highly creative adaptation of Kurosawa's Kagemusha. A dark descend into Mumbai's underworld and even the human soul.

5) Mukhbiir (Mani Shankar)

An interesting look at three hot beds of terrorism in India (North East, Hyderabad and Mumbai) through the eyes of an informer attempting to break into the gang's inner circle.

6) Welcome to Sajjanpur (Shyam Benegal)

Shyam Benegal's film is a breath of fresh air amid the congested Bollywood films set in the major cities. The films takes the story of a simplistic letter writer in an ordinary village and adds the complicated emotions of jealously yet still manages to render everything with an air of pureness and innocence hardly found in Indian cinema anymore.

7) Chamku (Kabeer Kaushik)

A Bihari revenge tale goes full circle with a stop-over in Mumbai.

8) A. Wednesday (Neeraj Pandey)

A gripping thriller about an innocent man taking revenge for the carnage that inflicted Mumbai in 2006.

9) Dasvidaniya (Shashant Shah)

The gang of 4 (Rajat Kapoor, Saurabh Shukla, Ranvir Shorey & Vinay Pathak) are back with Neha Dhupia. This time around Vinay Pathak gets to play two personas just like Ranvir Shorey did in Mithya. While Mithya was dark, Dasvidaniya is a bright shining light. The story of a man wanting to accomplish a few things before he dies may not be unique but the performances of all the secondary characters are quite strong. Plus the film maintains a pleasant tone throughout.

10) Mere Baap Pehle Aap (Priyadarshan)

A funny film about the role reversal that takes place between parents and their children as the parents age. Plus, the cute smile and expressions of Genelia D’Souza are a pleasure to watch.

Some other memorable moments:

Aamir:Raj Kumar Gupta did an excellent job in adapting the story of Cavite to the Mumbai slums in his debut feature Aamir. A worthy film which raised some excellent observances about 'victims' and 'villains'.

Priyanka Chopra turned in the best female performance of the year in Fashion. Her transformation from a cheery aspiring model to a cold hearted fashion superstar was stellar.

One of the funniest cinematic moments of the year came in the film Dostana, a story about two straight guys (Kunal & Sameer) who pretend to be gay in order to share a Miami apartment. Sameer's mother (Kiron Kher) is shocked to learn that her son is gay but Neha (Priyanka Chopra) tries to comfort the mother by saying that "pyar aandha hota hai" (love is blind). To which the mother hilariously replies that love is not so blind that it can't differentiate between a boy and a girl. The dialogue "love is blind" is one of the most over-used dialogues in Bollywood films so it was refreshing to see how the writers managed to get some more mileage out of this over-used phrase.

And finally a song....

Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na marked the debut of Aamir Khan's nephew Imran Khan. So it was fitting that Imran danced in a video that paid tribute to key aspects from three of his uncle's films over the last two decades. The song Paapu can't dance tipped a hat to the song Papa Kehte Hain from Aamir Khan's debut film Qayamat se Qayamat Tak, highlighted the spoiled rich kids shown in Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander and had the energy of the song Koye Kahe.. from Dil Chahta Hai. The video was infectious, cute and delightful. It was probably the only Bollywood video this year that I could not resist dancing to everytime it came on.

---

Overall, it was a pretty good year in Bollywood as there were some outstanding films. Ofcourse, the disasters were much more than previous years forcing me to give zero rating for atleast 5 films and rating below 5/10 for quite a few more. But in order to enjoy the good films, one has to pass through the muddy waters of the awful ones.

Oye second hit film oye!!

Dibakar Banerjee made a stunning feature film debut in 2006 with the wonderful Khosla Ka Ghosla. Khosla.. was a rare cinematic commodity -- an intelligent comedy! No slapstick, no vulgarity and no toilet humor, something most comedies, especially Bollywood flicks, often resort to. And Khosla.. also managed another remarkable feat in capturing the essence of New Delhi perfectly -- accents, behavior of people, attitudes, routines and even the housing scams. New Delhi hardly gets any screen attention in Indian films or even foreign films shot in India, so it was refreshing to see a director and writer (Jaideep Sahni) do justice to the complicated urban jungle that is Delhi.

So after a wonderful debut, could Dibakar’s second feature Oye Lucky Lucky Oye repeat the magic again?

The answer is a firm YES! Oye Lucky Lucky Oye is not only intelligent and funny but it once again captures the lifestyle of Delhi perfectly. The film does contain a tag that it is inspired by real life events and given the story of a small time robber, it is believable that someone could have managed so many burglaries.

Oye Lucky.. is the story of Lucky, a small time crook played by Abhay Deol. Lucky does not rob for money but more for fun.

Eventually, Lucky gets addicted to stealing. When he is bored or can’t fall asleep, he goes on a robbing binge, stealing everything from cars, jewelry to a pet dog or even a stuffed toy. Lucky does not use a gun for stealing but simply his confident attitude. In one outrageous example, he walks into a man’s house in broad daylight past the security guard, gets a car key from the house, greets the home owner’s grandmother and orders the security guard to help him keep a tv in the car and drives off, stealing both the car and tv.

The secret to his success is his ability to either charm people or emit such confidence that no one can think of him as a robber. Portraying such a confident character is not an easy task but Abhay Deol pulls it off brilliantly. Even though Abhay has picked some very interesting Bollywood roles in the past such as in Socha na Tha (his debut feature), Ek Chalis ke Local, Honeymoon Travels & Manorama Six Feet Under, his acting left a bit to be desired. But in Oye Lucky he is flawless in his dialogue delivery and body language.

Dibakar does justice to the little Delhiite details, like the way coffee is made. Only in Delhi homes have I seen coffee made by repeatedly stirring some ground coffee with sugar and a bit of milk until the entire mixture is a whipped up syrupy mixture. The characters in Oye Lucky.. speak and behave in perfect Delhi manners, although the film does focus mostly on the Punjabi characters. Plus shooting the film in local Delhi spots simply adds to the film’s realistic feel.

There are some additional casting decisions that enhance the film’s appeal. For example, Paresh Rawal plays three different un-related characters.

1) He plays Lucky’s father when Lucky is 15 years old.

2) He plays a local thug leader, Gogi, for whom Lucky steals.

3) And finally, he plays an ‘honest’ man, Dr. Handa, who cons Lucky out of money, albeit in a loving manner.

Rawal is wonderful in all three roles and using him in two additional roles is appropriate because both Gogi and Dr. Handa form a fatherly figure for Lucky. While Lucky rebelled against his real father, he forms a good bond with Gogi before eventually turning against him. Lucky is so taken by Dr. Handa that he ignores the fact that Handa and his wife (Archana Puran Singh at her best) are clearly extracting money from him. In the end, he is betrayed by Handa and the fatherly figure that he liked most turns out to be the most ruthless.

Then there is Lucky’s love interest, Sonal (Neetu Chandra). She is exactly the kind of everyday girl that one could find in any Delhi street and her casting is just icing on the cake.

And similar to his first film Khosla, Dibakar uses a very catchy Punjabi number (the title song) as a background score.

Overall, very impressed with this film. Enjoyed every minute of it and didn’t want it to end. Easily one of the best films to have come out of Bollywood in 2008.

Rating: 10/10

---

Official Film website

Black Friday Revisited

'Are you aware that there are sixty crore Hindus in India? Can you finish them all? Do you think that the United Nations will keep quiet? What about India’s mentor, Russia?'

The discussion continued, occasionally very heated, as various options were raised.

Shaikh Ahmed spoke up eventually. 'But can't we scare the Indian government and the Hindus into submission? The best thing to do will be to turn the tables on the Hindus. If we can intimidate Hindus in such a manner that in the future they will not in their wildest dreams try to subjugate the Muslims..'

This thought seemed to appeal to all present, and heads began to bob in agreement. Taufiq clapped his hands and said it was a superb idea. But once again silence descended on the room.

Tiger spoke up. 'Bombay is the pride of India, its financial nerve centre. It is also the place where Muslims suffered the most during the riots. Why not display our might and power there? Any attack on Bombay will have international repercussions. The government will be shaken. The world leaders will be shocked. Let us plan to take over Bombay. We can capture Mantralaya, the municipal corporation building and the airport, hold political leaders hostage and cripple the economy. We will draw international attention to the downtrodden Muslims of the country. We will...'

Dossa, who sounded impatient and irritated, interrupted, 'But how can you do it? From where will the money come?'

'Money is no problem,' Taufiq interjected. 'But do you think it can do done successfully?'

'With proper planning the CIA has toppled governments and taken over countries. We have to only disrupt one city. I already have a network. We need to fine-tune it further and rope in some committed young people to execute the job,' Tiger said.

Suddenly the room was electrified. The glum faces lit up. The discussion grew animated.

-- pages 38-39, Black Friday: The True story of the Bombay Bomb Blasts by S. Hussain Zaidi.

The above words could have taken place a few months ago but they were spoken almost 16 years ago in December 1992 as highlighted by S. Hussain’s extremely well researched and engaging book, Black Friday. The planning of a terrorist operation in Bombay, executed by multiple bombings on March 12 1993, was fueled by the violence that took place in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid mosque demolition.

The Babri Masjid at Ayodhya had been a bone of contention between Hindus and Muslims for over five hundred years, since the time when Babur’s general Mir Bagi had destroyed a temple there in 1528 to build a mosque he named after his master. For many Hindus the mosque was reputed to be built at the birthplace of Rama, an avatar of Vishnu, and hence a sacred site. The antiquity of the mosque had given it similar sanctity for many Muslims.

Things were at relative peace until the existence of the Masjid was used by some right wing Hindu political parties, especially the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to further their cause. The BJP wanted to demolish the Masjid and construct a temple in its place. The mosque was demolished on December 6 1992 and unleashed a wave of riots and violence across the country. "The worst incidents took place in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Banaras and Jaipur. There was widespread violence in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bidar, and Gulbarga."

The demolition of the mosque caused a lot of anger in the Muslim world and directly led to the bombings on March 12, 1993. Black Friday (both the film and book) shows that even though there were outside forces who were involved in the planning of the bombing, none of it would have been possible without the smuggling underworld network established by Dawood Ibrahim & Tiger Memon.

There were initial steps in the complex operation: first, to secure the arms and armaments and transport them to Bombay, and second, to recruit Muslim youths from Bombay and train them to cary out the bombings.

The weapons, including AK-56s, RDX and grenades, were smuggled into Bombay via the same complex network used for smuggling goods, so that meant local thugs and corrupt policemen were in on the take. Although, most people involved in the smuggling of the RDX had no idea what was being smuggled. Some were satisfied with the answer that the goods were something to avenge the blood of their Muslim brothers while others quietly looked the other way.

The golden aphorism of the underworld is that anything that is known to more than two people is no longer a secret. There are hundreds of informers or khabris in Bombay. They straddle the two worlds of the underworld gangs and the law enforcement agencies.

Almost all the people recruited or involved only knew that Tiger Memon was involved in the planning; they had no idea of the foreign groups who poured money into the operation. Tiger conducted the planning meetings himself and was responsible for the initial list of the targets as per Badshah Khan’s confession:

Tiger bhai announced that the targets had been selected and finalized. 'The first targets are the Air-India building at Nariman Point; the Bharat Petroleum oil refinery at Chembur; the share market at Fort; and the gold market at Zaveri Bazaar. Then there are five five-star hotels: the Sea Rock, the two Centaurs, Oberoi Sheraton and Taj Mahal; the top film theatres: the Metro, Regal, Excelsior, Sterling and Plaza; Shiv Sena Bhavan at Dadar; the BMC building at VT; Sahar International Airport; the RPO at Worli; and Mantralaya.'


The final list was shortened after one terrorist recruit was caught by the police. Fearing that he might reveal the operation to the police, Tiger Memon decided to carry out the attack within three days of the recruit’s arrest. Anurag Kashyap’s film version of Black Friday actually begins with the arrest of this recruit. In the end, few targets such as the oil refinery were dropped because of the difficulty in planning for the quick attack (the book highlights the planning in detail). It was shocking to read that the Taj, Oberoi and the Metro cinema were in that initial list as all three locations were targeted last week.

As for the training, the book does an excellent job in showing how the recruits were transported across India to Dubai and eventually to Pakistan where they were trained on how to use the Kalashnikovs and the RDX, among other weapons. A lot of the training details are rendered first hand from the confession of Badshah Khan. One can only imagine that similar camps were used this time around to train the terrorists.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the book is documenting the investigation process that resulted in the aftermath of the bombings. Because of the clues left around (the Maruti van with weapons and RDX, the unexploded scooters), police were able to quickly get some leads and chase some names down. Although, the entire process of convicting the criminals took months, with the court trial lasting almost 13 years. In fact, the release of Anurag Kashyap’s film version of Black Friday was delayed by the Indian courts for almost two years because they felt his film would influence the bombing trial.

The film

In January 2007, Anurag Kashyap’s Black Friday was finally released. Although it is hard to know how many people in India saw it. In North America, the film got a limited release and was easily missed. Only 5 reviews are listed on Metacritic. Although, Matt Zoller Seitz included the film as his #1 best film of 2007. Kirk Honeycutt's review was very positive:

Anurag Kashyap's "Black Friday" is a superb and devastating piece of cinema that with justification can be compared favorably to Gillo Pontocorvo's classic "The Battle of Algiers" in its dispassionate yet sweeping journalistic inquiry into cataclysmic social and political events. While the events described may seem remote to some American viewers, our current encounter with modern-day terrorism gives "Black Friday" a clarion immediacy.

Kirk is right about the relevance of the film, although I do believe the film’s structure might make people feel distanced from the film, as highlighted by the review of Variety’s Derek Elley who commented that the "well-cast pic will appeal to specialized auds already tuned into the subject-matter but has limited theatrical chances offshore."

The film is not easy to watch as it does not spoon feed elements for the audience but good cinema does require or even demands its audience to pay attention. Even though Black Friday does throw around a dizzying amount of names and characters, one can still grasp the overall framework of the terrorist operations by watching the film without reading the book. Although reading the book enhances the experience as it allows one to navigate the topography of the film, meaning one can easily place each character and each dialogue in context. In fact, I found myself knowing exactly who each character was and their relevance to the case just by observing the scene. In that regard, the film does an excellent job of extracting enough detail from the book.

The film stands brilliantly on its own as it a case study of how terrorist operations are planned, executed and even investigated by the police. Plus, we get an insight into how terrorists go about recruiting young men and even training them. Even though the film is firmly rooted in the Bombay blasts, one can imagine similar structure and planning has gone on with other terrorist activities around the world.

Black Friday answers many questions about international terrorism:

Where does the money for terrorist activities come from? -- In case of the Bombay attacks, it was a combination of international terrorist organizations, many of them who had no previous connections to India. The organizations were able to pool money for the sole purpose of revenge.

How are men recruited for terrorist activities? -- Angry young men are found willing to die for their cause via local connections. If the recruits are local men, all the better because they know the terrain the best.

Where do the weapons come from? -- Money is one thing but getting weapons is the key. In the book and film, it is clearly shown that the guns and grenades were obtained from Pakistan. Investigation revealed that the grenades used were manufactured from an old Austrian machine bought by Pakistan in the 1970s.

How are the recruits trained? -- There are only a few places on the planet where young terrorists can be trained. It is essential to find a place where the government will not interfere when loud bombs and machine gun fire takes place in isolated country-sides or mountains. The films shows the training sites to be in Pakistan, but Afghanistan would apply equally.

How are weapons smuggled in the country? -- No outside force can cause havoc in a city without local help. In the case of the Bombay blasts in 1993, it was the local network established by Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon that allowed the weapons to make their way into the country.

Kashyap’s film is not only relevant but also responsible in trying to objectively show the events without taking sides. We see how the terrorists plan their operation while also seeing how the police can abuse their power in the goal of finding the truth. There is one element that Kashyap has included in the film to illustrate this point. Devoting a few minutes to the case of Rajesh Rajkumar Khurana adds nothing to the overall terrorist plan but it shows how an innocent man was wrongly arrested and intimidated. Khurana spent only a night in jail but during that night, some of the local police men showed that they were willing to rape arrested women to get information. Khurana was taunted that if he did not provide information, his wife would suffer the same fate. The next day after Khurana was released, he went home and shot his family, including his wife, their 3 year old son and 2 year old daughter, and drove them in a car, before shooting himself. Khurana was completely innocent, a fact later admitted by the police. This segment forms one of the most haunting scenes in the film. What goes through a man’s mind that he shoots his young children and calmly puts them in a car before taking his own life? In another instance in the film, inspector Rakesh Maria (Kay Kay Menon) is asked by a reporter about the human rights violation in arresting innocents. Maria responds by saying that what about the human right violations of the innocents that were blown by the bombs? The film shows the difficulty of working within law and order to find justice but also raises questions of ethics and honesty.

A running time of 150 minutes may appear long but considering how much material the film covers, it is easily understandable. When I first saw the film almost two years ago, I found the film quite engaging and even included it in my top films of 2007. Although, I had found myself questioning the length of certain segments, for example why so much time was spent on showing Badshah Khan’s journey across India, Bombay-Delhi-Rampur (Uttar Pradesh)-Jaipur & Tonk (Rajasthan) to Calcutta. Reading the book now, I can understand the relevance of including every scene in the movie. Badshah Khan was the only arrested terrorist that gave a detailed account of the training, planning and execution. Without his testimony, a lot of the elements might not have fit into place for the investigation. And the film shows that the length of time spent by him traveling across India only increased his frustration and convinced him to testify to the police.

Technically, the film is perfect as the camera angles are smart and switch perfectly between close-ups (only showing the eyes of certain characters in some situations) and long shots. In fact, at times there is so much action packed in a single frame that one cannot remove their eyes from the action. Plenty of scenes are filmed with amazing realism that one forgets that this is scripted cinema. The arguments between Badshah Khan and his gang come to mind when Khan learns that his passport has been burned. The camera spends enough time on the action as we see the argument swell up, almost boil over and then cool down. Kashyap also includes actual documentary footage of the attacks, speeches and even the demolition of the mosque seamlessly within his film.

Overall comments:

Dismissing the film by saying that it only applies to audiences who are familiar with the Bombay blast trial is akin to saying that the Godfather films are only of interest to people who know about the American Italian mafia or that Gomorra will only make sense for audiences who have read about the Naples Mafia or that Johnny To’s Election films are meant for audiences familiar with the Hong Kong Triads. Black Friday is much more than just a study of the Bombay Blasts; it is unlike any other film to come out of the cinematic world in the last decade. It is a precious cinematic treasure that is an essential guide to understanding the dynamics of global terrorism.

Black Friday (2005, Anurag Kashyap): 10/10
Note: all quotes are taken from S. Hussain Zaidi’s insightful book.

The Art of the Informer

informer

1. a person who informs against another, esp. for money or other reward.
2. a person who informs or communicates information or news; informant.

spy

1. a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, esp. with reference to military or naval affairs.
2. a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
3. a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, esp. one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor: an industrial spy.

Informers and Spies are old as human civilization. For whenever a great power (be it a nation or an empire) existed, there were people who utilized informers or spies to find ways to bring down that power. While the terms spy and informer are used interchangeably quite often, there is a subtle difference between a spy and an informer. A spy might employ multiple informers at any given time but an informer is always alone on the lowest rung of the intelligence ladder. One can call an informer the tiny particle that quietly resides in the nucleus of an organization, quietly observing the dance of the electrons and those other highly charged particles. An informer gathers whatever valuable piece of information they can and then has to find a way to relay that information to others on the outside. Now this is not to say that a spy cannot become an informer. From time to time, a spy would have to go undercover on their own and embed themselves within an organization and act as an informer. In fact, some spies might even have graduated from the level of an informer. Another difference between the two would be related to the transmission of information. The informer provides concrete information, something that they have heard or seen. Whereas, spies also engage in the game of misinformation whereby they circulate some lies from time to time to either cause a reaction or to even fish out the truth. The spread of misinformation also has the danger of a "blowback" when the misinformation results in reactions that have dangerous consequences. For example, Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars hints at how misinformation might have contributed to some of the mess that resulted in the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, a mess that is still to be sorted out.

Through the years, films have been packed with plenty of worthy examples of informers. Titles such as Govind Nihalani's Drohkaal, Mike Newell's Donnie Brasco, Wai-keung Lau & Alan Mak's Infernal Affairs remade by Martin Scorsese as The Departed come to mind. In Drohkaal and Donnie Brasco, police get an informer to break through a terrorist cell and a mafia gang respectively as those are the common settings found in most informer films. But the genius of Infernal affairs was that it simultaneously showed informers existing both in the police world and the mafia gang, thus resulting in a brilliant calculated game of chess. In a way, Infernal Affairs took the complicated world of international espionage and adapted it to the street level of informers.

As different as all these above films were, they all had one thing in common -- the informer was a tough man able to withstand the rigors of living with the enemy. On the other hand, Mani Shankar has done something very unique with Mukhbiir in that his informer character is a 19 year old lad. The young age of the informer gives the film a very different complexion and gives flexibility to his character in three areas:

Innocence: Since the informer (Kailash played by Sammir Dattani) is quite young, one can believe the look of innocence on his face. In fact, it is this innocence that allows the informer to warm up to a gang leader in Hyderabad and to win the leader's sister's lustful affection. At times Kailash appears to be a little child at heart and his playful nature allows him to befriend a young boy thus easing the path to a critical victory in the end -- the young boy is in charge of a fax machine in a nearby store and Kailash comes up with a very believable agreement with the boy to fax key secrets to the police.

Lack of history: The fact that Kailash is an orphan plays a key role in him looking up to his police officer boss (Rathod played by Om Puri) as a father figure. This relationship establishes a feeling of warmth and mutual trust and is crucial to the story's development. Although, at times one gets a sense that Rathod is using Kailash for his own needs but Rathod's wife, who treats Kailash like a son, ensures that Rathod promises to lookout for the boy. Also, since Kailash has no real history of any relationships, he can easily move from one city to another.

Lack of Self: This is the most important aspect of Kailash's young age. The fact that he has not seen enough of life or truly discovered his identity ensures that he can easily live in any environment. At the film's start, we find Kailash living in North East India and he eventually moves to Hyderabad before being positioned to the underworld circle in Mumbai. Kailash is able to easily slip into another's identity and is quite comfortable no matter where he has to stay. In the film's third assignment in Mumbai, Kailash has to covert to Islam. Quite remarkably, he is able to convert without any difficulty and gives himself fully over to his new religion. This is proved useful in a key scene where he is drugged unknowingly and put through a lie detector test. Any other person might have blurted the truth out but since Kailash believes completely in his new identity, he passes the test with flying colours.

Overall, Mukhbiir is a real surprize discovery. In fact, just like the character of Kailash, the film appears to have slipped under the radar. Mani Shankar has shown some promise in his earlier films, especially in 16 December, but this time he gets it completely right by properly giving the time to develop his character and even the situations that Kailash lands himself in. There are plenty of relevant details shown on how information can be transmitted or the degree to which Kailash has to risk his life. A perfect example of the level of detail shown in the film occurs at the film's start where Kailash drops a sketch of a terrorist from the travelling bus. Rathod picks up the sketch, takes a picture of it using his cell phone and emails the picture to the police headquarters where they are able to run a match against their database to confirm the identity of the terrorist. The entire sequence takes less than a few minutes and considering that every minute counts for Kailash's safety, it is interesting to see the chain of command that allows such decisions to be made.

As good as the film is, it is not without flaws, especially considering the events that lead to the film's resolution. But this is a minor complain given the strength of everything else on display. And in one aspect, this film is a close kin of Govind Nihalani's Drohkaal given how the informer is left to fend for himself when others around him are killed.

Rating: 9/10

A Bihari revenge tale goes full cirle

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are two Indian states where politics is brewed with more passion than one could find in most major Indian cities. In the last few years, a few Indian film-makers such as Prakash Jha & Tigmanshu Dhulia have tackled these states cinematically. Jha, who was born in Bihar and understands his home state and even neighbouring Uttar Pradesh better than most, gave us two worthy films in the form of Gangaajal, which was about rogue cops, and Apaharan, which depicted the issue of political kidnappings. Tigmanshu Dhulia's well crafted Haasil showed how political scheming can start as early as college in Uttar Pradesh before morphing into full blown corruption and violence.

Kabeer Kaushik can add his name to the list of directors who understand Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as he set his first film Sehar in the political labyrinth of Uttar Pradesh and moves to Bihar with Chamku. The battle ground in the absorbing Sehar was between corrupt politicians along with their criminal arms vs honest cops. The film's key success was setting the story in the early 1990's just as cell phones were starting to make their way across India. Baffled by the inability to tap cell phones, the local police in the film are at a loss on how to handle the new wave of criminal activities conduced by aerial waves. Sehar shows how the local police are trained on cell phone operations via a professor and how they are able to use this new knowledge to catch criminals. Even though the film was released in 2005, the film's story about the importance of cell phones in conducting criminal activities precedes Ram Gopal Varma's underworld films such as Company (released in 2002) which depicts criminals being comfortable enough to sit in far off locations such as Kenya and ordering their henchmen to do the leg work in Mumbai via cell phones. In fact, both Sehar and Company compliment each other regarding cell phones. Company only shows the criminals on one side of the phone while Sehar shows the cops listening in on the other side.

Chamku is an old fashioned revenge story which starts and ends with a barrel of a gun.



What makes the film so interesting is that the Bihari revenge element is kept on the fringes and instead the core of the story involves the murky Mumbai surroundings of modern day political assassinations. Criminal activities in modern Indian cities often have roots in the fringe states. This is something that John Matthew Matthan understood very well and highlighted in his brilliant debut film, Sarfarosh, which showed how the porous desert border between India and Pakistan could be used to smuggle weapons which then were used to inflict damage all across the country. In Chamku the danger comes from the border between Uttar Pradesh and Nepal where bomb making materials enter the country and make their way to Mumbai. These border transactions are made easier because of corrupt local politicians in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar that profit from such deals.

Chamku starts out with a battle between Naxalites and the local police forces. After the police are able to eliminate their opponents, a lone survivor Chamku (played by Bobby Deol) remains. Because of his sharp shooting skills and ability to survive, he is given a new lease of life when he is recruited by a special branch of Mumbai police to carry out killings of corrupt politicians. These covert operations take place in broad daylight amid the turf wars taking place around the city. There are plenty of characters who look out for Chamku but are tragically killed. Each time that Chamku survives, he puts it down to pure luck. But it more than just sheer luck. One can even say that it is his destiny that he will get a chance to ensure his life's story goes full circle and he is able to avenge his father's murder. Interestingly, the film's opening voice over narration points towards such a cyclic nature of ‘beginning’ and ‘end’.

The Good...
Bobby Deol is perfectly cast for this role as his stern expressions are more than enough to convey his character's feelings. There are some worthy cameos in the film (Danny Denzongpa, Ritesh Deshmukh & Rajpal Yadav) and all their characters are given relevant and interesting parts. Irfan Khan is good as usual in playing Chamku's boss.

The parallel sequences and even some of the symmetry shown in the film is a delight to watch. Examples: the gun barrel scenes and the two encounter sequences. The hunter from the first gun barrel scene becomes the prey in the finale and the prey from the first shot is firmly in power by the film's end. There are two encounter sequences in the film and in both cases, Chamku survives, the first time due to his ability to outrun the bullets and in the second case, due to some political smooth talking. The two different sequences show that encounter killing is used by police both in Bihar and even in Mumbai with both killing locations being eerily similar in their settings.




The opening sequence is quite beautifully shot. Picture perfect really! The film starts off with Chamku tied up as a prisoner in the train.

He looks towards a woman sitting across from him. Beautiful and innocent looking.

The woman turns away from Chamku and looks outside the train window. The camera then focuses on her and in her eyes one can sense nervousness and even a tinge of anticipation. It was then that I was certain that she was on a mission and was not an innocent passenger. Sure enough, that turned out to be the case. But all this was apparent because of the camera's movements and focus on the character's expressions.




The not so good...

The songs in the film are not needed and do not add anything to the story. The time wasted on songs could have been better served by more relevant scenes of the principle characters.  The film could have done with a better title as Chamku indicates a person's nickname and incorrectly presents a soft image of such a powerful film.  And finally, Priyanka Chopra is surprisingly miscast as Chamku's love interest.

Rating: 8.5/10
Overall, quite impressed with this film.

Note:
Chamku forms a cinematic bond with two other 2008 films in Mumbai Meri Jaan & A Wednesday. In Chamku before the Mumbai bomb blasts are shown, the melodious song by Mohammed Rafi & Geeta Dutt comes on.

Aye dil hai mushkil jeena yahan
Zara hat ke zara bach ke, yeh hai Bombay meri jaan


Mumbai Meri Jaan ends with this song and dealt with how the characters reacted with their loss. A Wednesday shows how one character decides to take his revenge regarding the bombings. Neither of these two films gives a true face to the criminals involved in the bombings but Chamku gives us some clues to their identities.

Mumbai

The title of Nishikant Kamat's Mumbai Meri Jaan comes from this amazing melodious song sung by Mohammed Rafi & Geeta Dutt:

Aye dil hai mushkil jeena yahan
Zara hat ke zara bach ke, yeh hai Bombay meri jaan


While the song is cheery and uplifting, the film deals with a topic that is anything but happy. Mumbai Meri Jaan shows how the lives of a few characters is affected by the Mumbai train bomb blasts of 2006. To Nishikant's & writer Yogesh Vinayak Joshi's credit, they have crafted a film with such grace and beauty that there is no room for melodrama and no speech about why the terrorists continue to kill innocent people. Instead, we are given ordinary every day characters and observe how a drastic event shakes things up for them. The film ends with a moment's silence for the victims and while we watch the characters observe the silence, the Rafi song comes on, and the screen fades to black as the words "yeh hai Bombay meri jaan.." echo in the background, a perfect way to end the film.

In a way, Mumbai Meri Jaan is a testament to the human spirit of Mumbai, one of the most vibrant cities in the world. Unfortunately, it is also a city that suffers a lot as it constantly has to bear the brunt of terrorists who continue to kill innocents for a cause that even they could not name. After each attack, the citizens are expected to return to their life and forget the violence. But if a citizen is angered, what can he/she do?

Neeraj Pandey's debut film A Wednesday answers that question by portraying a situation where an ordinary citizen, "a common man", decides to take matters in his own hands and get revenge for the constant violence that rocks his city. The film depicts how a mysterious man has the Mumbai police on the run to stop further possible bomb explosions in the city. I would hate to give anything away as I watched the film without knowing the story and enjoyed how things unfolded, although I did guess on where things were going.

Both Mumbai Meri Jaan and A Wednesday are a rare commodity in Bollywood in depicting the police as hard working and sincere human beings. That is a refreshing thing to see plus both films contain excellent performances from some of the best actors in the industry such as Paresh Rawal, Kay Kay Menon, Irfan Khan (Mumbai Meri Jaan) and Naseeruddin Shah, Anupam Kher (A Wednesday).

Ratings out of 10:
Mumbai Meri Jaan: 9
A Wedneday: 8.5

A matter of taste

Every summer it seems that North American film critics have to respond to why they did not like a certain Hollywood blockbuster film. Two years ago, A.O Scott tackled this issue when discussing the newest Pirates sequel:

But the discrepancy between what critics think and how the public behaves is of perennial interest because it throws into relief some basic questions about taste, economics and the nature of popular entertainment, as well as the more vexing issue of what, exactly, critics are for.

Are we out of touch with the audience? Why do we go sniffing after art where everyone else is looking for fun, and spoiling everybody's fun when it doesn't live up to our notion or art?

I have often read comments along the lines of why some critics cannot "lighten-up" or "loosen up" when it comes to reviewing certain commercial titles. But why is it assumed that a commercial film should be liked by everyone? And that too, why must all critics conform? For example, this summer The Dark Knight is already considered to be "the greatest film ever made" and any critic who dared to think otherwise was abused (ranging from mild words about their small brain to "you are a #$#%#$"). I often find it amusing that some people can get quite abusive when others offer a differing view on a film. Seriously, how can everyone like the same movie? For the most part, films are always perceived with a subjective lens, no matter how much a person tries to approach it in objective terms. Ofcourse that does not stop some people from trying to stamp an objective verdict on a film by calling it "the greatest film ever made" or "best film of the century", etc. If all the film going public around the world were to vote on the best film ever made, you will never get one unanimous answer. Yes, there are numerous annual "best of.. lists" and each get votes from film critics, industry personnel or film buffs. Sometimes the same titles pop up in these lists but I find it more useful to read why certain people chose a particular film – there is a possibility that they saw noticed a quality in a film where others had failed to.

Over time, if people continue to read a certain critic’s reviews, they can develop a sense of the films a reviewer likes or not. And even if someone normally agrees with a critic’s views, there will always be cases when a difference will arise. The difference should be an opportunity to exchange viewpoints and not merely a chance to slam the door with words like "if you don’t like the movie, you are an idiot".

Differing treatment of film critics in Hollywood vs Bollywood

Hollywood still has a need for movie critics even if quite a few of them are losing their jobs. Evidence can be found in how the industry still continues to hold advance press screenings of their movies. And if a critic likes a movie, then their blurbs are plastered all over the movie poster. When a film does not have an advance screening, it is immediately assumed that the movie is awful and the producers/distributors are hoping to recoup as much weekend box office money before the negative reviews hit the headlines. Now admittedly, quite a few reviews do not go into in-depth critical analysis of a film but merely present the synopsis with a movie rating. That raises another contentious topic of how many people actually read a movie review and what are they looking to get out of it. Do most people just care for a number rating? Or are they just interested in going to see a film just because of the actors or genre? The answers to these questions circles back to the start of A.O Scott's article regarding the need for a critic and of people's tastes.

On the other hand, Bollywood as an industry does not respect a film critic and as a rule ignore their verdict. There are hardly any advance film screenings and even before a movie is released, the film producers/directors/actors go out of their way to ensure their movie is critic proof. Most interviews with the film-makers involve the following chosen words about their newest Bollywood movie:

It is a juicy "masala" movie

Meaning: A typical Bollywood film with action, songs, dance, romance, emotion, etc.

"Entertaining movie", fun for the whole family

Meaning: comedy movie with good songs

"Fresh love story"

Meaning: The movie is unlike the countless other stale love stories that get released every year. Also, means a film with new actors.

People should go enjoy the movie and "leave their brain at the door"

Meaning: The film has no plot, so one should not question anything. Just laugh.

When a Bollywood film does well at the box office but gets negative reviews, the film-makers say the movie is "for the masses". When a film does poorly at the box office, then the film-makers say the movie is "for the classes", referring to the middle class and elite sections of Indian society who can apparently appreciate the mature themes shown. And when both the classes and masses reject a movie, then the film-makers say that the movie is too sophisticated for the Indian audiences and is made for the foreign crowd (Indian diaspora, film festivals, etc). When everyone rejects their movie, then the film-makers say that the world is not ready to understand their unique genius. Honestly, how can a critic be ever expected to fight against Bollywood's built in critic-proof ego?

Note: India has to be the only country in the world where people line up in millions to see a movie which they know nothing about. This is because the trailers are only clips of the film songs, sometimes spliced with few movie scenes. In most cases, even the story is never really revealed in advance. Critics only get to see a movie on the Friday afternoon opening shows along with the rest of the audience and their reviews are not available until later on Friday evening and in the weekend publications.

I left my brain at the door. So should you.

Only in India could such a film review get published. In reviewing the newest Bollywood film Singh Is Kinng Taran Adarsh begins his review thus:

Just a word of caution before you watch this film: Singh Is Kinng is not for the intellectuals or those pretending to be one. It's not for the hard-nosed critics either.

He even explains what is wrong with the audience if they do not enjoy this movie.

You know the rules when you watch a hardcore entertainer: Just don't look for logic. If you do, too bad for you, for you would never enjoy a film of this genre and more specifically, Singh Is Kinng.

And Taran goes onto praise the limited talents of the film-maker.

Anees Bazmee's films are very high on entertainment. The plotline may be paper-thin, perhaps ludicrous and farcical, but when did Bazmee ever promise a SCHINDLER'S LIST [sic] or a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? [sic] Singh Is Kinng works because it delivers what it promises: Full on entertainment!

Hilarious. Here is a critic actually admitting a film-maker’s flaws but yet endorsing the movie because it is “Full on entertainment”. That’s right. None of this half-on or quarter-on, it FULL ON baby. He might have added India’s favourite words right now "Mind blowing".

Oh but to give credit to Taran, he does say that the film is not perfect.

But, wait, Singh Is Kinng isn't a foolproof product. It has its share of flaws, the turn of events aren't captivating at times, but Singh Is Kinng moves so fast and packs in so much, there's no time to think or analyze.

You mean the movie is “shock and awe”? Genius!

And here’s the final verdict:

The final word? Singh Is Kinng is a delicious and scrumptious pav-bhaji served in the finest cutlery. Your taste buds are sure to relish it... and ask for more!
.........
On the whole, Singh Is Kinng lives up to the hype and hoopla. Want a joyride without taxing your brains? Board the Singh Is Kinng wagon. At the box-office, the film will fetch a hurricane-like start. The paid previews, the opening weekend, the first week business, everything will be record-shattering. Notwithstanding the new oppositions in the weeks to come, Singh Is Kinng will rule the hearts of the aam junta [whose verdict matters the most] as also the box-office, proving a record holder in the final tally. Blockbuster Hit!


Come on, who does not like pav-bhaji? Actually, since I had pav-bhaji 2 nights ago, I think I might hold off getting me some cinematic version of this Mumbai dish.

But Taran is not all fun and games. He does get serious sometimes. For example, he was troubled by last year’s No Smoking

After having watched NO SMOKING, the first thing you want to do is ask Anurag Kashyap, the director of this misadventure: Now what was that? Cinema is all about three Es -- enlighten, educate and entertain. But NO SMOKING neither educates, nor enlightens. As for entertainment, forget it!

You try so hard to understand what NO SMOKING tries to say, but the film is like one big puzzle that refuses to get solved.

What ails NO SMOKING, did you ask. Simple, it’s the most complicated cinematic experience of 2007.

Errr. It was not that complicated really. Heck, I loved it. But Taran does not share my views:

NO SMOKING leaves you exasperated and disgusted. Exasperated, because till the end credits roll, you just don’t know what happened in those 2 hours.

Were we watching the same movie? I was not disgusted but rather left with a giddy sense of excitement because watching No Smoking reminded me of films like David Fincher’s The Game & Fight Club, Alejandro Amenábar's Open Your Eyes (remade as Vanilla Sky), The Devil's Advocate and one scene even reminded of David Lynch's Inland Empire.

Although I see the real source of Taran’s disappointment: There’re hardly any songs in the narrative but the one filmed on Jesse Randhawa [‘Jab Bhi Cigarette Peeta Hoon’] is imaginatively filmed. Surprisingly, the popular Bipasha Basu track, which has also been publicized extensively, is placed after the end titles.

A Bollywood movie has to have atleast 6 songs. Come on. That is the golden rule.

Taran wants people to take an Anees Bazmee film on face value and not question anything but then shouldn’t one take Anurag's film in the same manner? If an absurd film like Bazmee’s No Entry has no logic and people are asked to ignore its shortcomings, then why is there the need to understand No Smoking? Ah. But as per Taran, No Smoking does not entertain. I do not share his opinion regarding No Smoking which I thought was an extremely intelligent film packed with plenty of ideas. But thankfully I do not read Taran’s film reviews but I am sure there are plenty out there who read and listen (via his tv show) to what he has to say (scary thought that).

A matter of taste

Film fan #1: I only like comedies and stay away from action flicks.
Film fan #2: I only like action movies and cannot stand chick-flicks.
Film fan #3: Sci-fi does it for me.
Film fan #4: I only like foreign films.
Film fan #5: I like everything but foreign films.
Film fan #6: I like all kinds of movie.
Film fan #7: I like all kinds of movie, provided they are made well.

Restaurant patron #1: I only like steak.
Restaurant patron #2: I am vegetarian, which eliminates 90% of the menu items for me.
Restaurant patron #3: I only like sushi.
Restaurant patron #4: I only like spicy food.
Restaurant patron #5: French food is the best cuisine. Everything else is substandard.
Restaurant patron #6: I like all kinds of food, provided it is presented well.
Restaurant patron #7: I like all kinds of food, provided it is cooked well.
Restaurant patron #8: I like all kinds of food, provided it tastes good.
Restaurant patron #9: I like all kinds of food, provided it is presented nicely and cooked well.
Restaurant patron #10: I like all kinds of food, provided it is presented nicely, cooked well and the tastes are nice.

Patron #X shares his dining experience from the Sing-Song Multiplex Restaurant.

The entire dish was so beautifully presented that I was beside myself. I have to say, the meal was “FULL ON” value for my money because a beautiful waitress brought it to me in the most gorgeous plate I have ever seen, with the finest cutlery. I cannot criticize the meal because everything was so beautiful that I quickly swallowed the meal without having time to chew or think about the tastes. The restaurant delivered solid entertainment. What a gorgeous waitress. I would gladly eat any dish that she serves.

Owner of the Sing-Song Multiplex Restaurant:

We found out that most people coming to our establishment do not care for the food. So in order to save costs, we serve stale meat, our sauces are either too salty or too spicy depending on which ingredients are still left, and most often our vegetables are rotten. For desserts, the cherries we place on top of the cakes are always moldy. For the most part, no one complains. They keep coming back because we have the most beautiful women working in the place and we have a very vibrant atmosphere. Occasionally, a snobby food critic comes to our place and demands healthy & tasty food. But no one really cares to what he/she has to say. We keep making money. That is all that matters.