Look at me, Witnesses, The Blue Angel

Comme une image (Look at me, directed by Agnès Jaoui): Rating 9.5/10

Director Agnès Jaoui knows how to make a beautiful movie. And she and co-star and co-writer, Jean-Pierre Bacri know how to write a realistic script. They did that in 2000’s The Taste of Others which is a movie I quite liked. In 2005, the two of them combined for this wonderful movie which won them best screenplay at the Cannes Festival. Yet again, Jaoui and Bacri show the complex relationships that exist between people which lead them to created complicated messes for themselves. The two of them know to how to integrate realistic everyday elements into their story. For example, there is a scene in which the wife (played by Jaoui herself) is sitting on a couch watching tv. Her husband shows up, is tired and tries to tell her his problems. She is feeling a bit cold so she takes a blanket and tries to get more comfortable. As the husband is busy sulking, she is busy trying to find the tv remote control which is buried somewhere beneath the blanket. That’s the scene, simple yet realistic.

Lolita (Marilou Berry) is preparing for a musical concert. As she continues to practice her vocals, she has to deal with the fact that her father, a famous writer (Étienne played by Bacri), does not pay enough attention to her. The father is busy with his life and is married to a much younger wife, Karine (Virginie Desarnauts, who sort of looks like Naomi Watts in parts). Then there is Sylvia (played by Jaoui) and Pierre (Laurent Grévill). Sylvia is a music teacher who is training Lolita. Pierre is a struggling writer who is hoping his third book will make it big. Sylvia is a huge fan of Étienne and when she finds out that Lolita is her daughter, her attitude changes. She is star-struck and agrees to spend more time with Lolita even though she often complained about Lolita to Pierre. As is the case with most French movies, you take a complicated bunch of characters and then throw them together in a French cottage outside the city and watch the sparks fly. There are a few other interesting characters thrown into the mix such as Sébastien (Keine Bouhiza) and Vincent (Grégoire Oestermann). A wonderful movie which makes for a pleasant afternoon watch!

Svjedoci (Witnesses, 2003 movie directed by Vinko Bresan): Rating 6/10

This Croatian movie made a name for itself at the European film festival circuit. It is told in Rashômon style. But despite the technique, the film is flat and never really seems to take off. Three young Croatian soldiers are planning to blow up their neighbours house. The neighbour was not expected to be home so the three are startled to find him present and one of them ends up shooting him. The three soldiers flee the incident and take a witness as a hostage. A police inspector and a crime reporter try to dig the truth up. This simple incident is told over and over from different angles, each time another layer of the story is added. But the problem is none of the additional information makes the movie interesting. There is nothing in this story which should really be hidden or presented in this manner. The movie clocks in slightly under 80 minutes and even that seems to be a bit long. Might have been more interesting as a compact 20 minute short film!

Der Blaue Engel (The Blue Angel, 1930 movie directed by Josef von Sternberg): Rating 8/10

This movie is considered a classic! More than the director, it seems that the actress Marlene Dietrich got more of a star billing after this movie. But seeing this 1930 movie in 2006 does not have the same effect. On top of that, the grainy VHS copy of this movie had poor subtitles (subtitles were missing in parts) and choppy sound. But I tried to overlook all that and tried to enjoy the movie as much as I could. That being said, it is an interesting character study. A strict professor (Prof. Immanuel Rath played by Emil Jannings) is tired of his students neglecting their studies for the alluring Lola (Dietrich), a dancer in the Blue Angel club. The students go watch her show after school and during the day, they pass her photos around in class. So Prof. Rath decides to go the club and give Lola hell. But he too is smitten by her charm. And he starts neglecting his job and daydreams about her. Lola decides to misuse the Prof. and agrees to marry him. The two of them leave their town and head for the road with the night club show troupe. But she threats him horribly and reduces him to nothing. On top of that, the professor is forced to play a clown in her traveling night shows. The professor withstands this for 5 years but when he is asked to be a clown in the Blue Angel club in front of his former colleagues and students, he can’t take it anymore. He hates his life and despises Lola. The fantasy has become a living nightmare.

The 4th Man, The Woman Next Door, Salò and Tokyo Drifter

The insane movie watching in the first month of the New Year continues. After this week, this excessive movie watching will hopefully stop. I have been watching movies faster than I can write about them.

The 4th Man (1983 movie directed by Paul Verhoeven): Rating 8/10

Long before Basic Instinct came along, Paul Verhoeven directed this gritty and interesting movie about a deadly femme. The movie is not subtle but packed with tons of symbols and foreshadowing, which makes it an enjoyable watch because the viewer is able to clue onto things much before the main character does. The opening scene lets us know straight away what is in store – a spider is shown trapping its insect victims. The scene is shown while the credits are rolling so initially I didn’t pay attention to how many victims the spider traps. But half way through the movie, I realized the number had to be 3. And sure enough, it was. And then the title of the movie makes sense, the 4th man refers to the 4th victim of the mysterious Christine Halsslag (played with utmost creepiness and coldness by Renée Soutendijk). Jeroen Krabbé plays a popular writer, Gerard Reve (same name as the author of the book on which this movie is based), who is invited to give a speech in a small town. Along the way, Reve encounters a series of bizarre incidents and even has some hallucinations (which turn out to be premonitions). But he dismisses all of this when he meets the chilly blond Christine. Reve falls for her immediately. In a drunken state, Reve comes across old home movies of Christine’s past husbands. At this point, the viewer is fully aware what fate could have befallen to her 3 ex-husbands. But Reve is lust crazy not only for Christine but for Christine’s new fling, Herman. Eventually, he does see the truth for what it is and tries to warn Herman lest one of them becomes the 4th man.

La Femme d'à côté (The Woman Next Door, 1981 movie directed by François Truffaut):
Rating 7.5/10

Gérard Depardieu and Fanny Ardant play two former lovers (Bernard and Mathilde respectively) who find themselves reacquainted by chance after 8 years or so. Both are now married and Bernard even has a little son. Initially, he tries to ignore Mathilde but eventually he falls for her again. Their fiery relationship boils over until it ends up in a public fight in front of all their families and friends. Just as things seem to be getting back to normal, the fire is lit once more for an explosive finale. The movie starts off interestingly but it gets a bit too predictable near the end. Not bad though.

Salò (1976 movie directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini): Rating an unwatchable 0/10

With all due respect to Pier Pasolini, no one should have to watch this movie! I never thought I would see a movie which would make movies like Tokyo Decadence and other shock Japanese/Korean movies appear like light hearty family movies. Now, I knew this would be graphic (words like 120 days of Sodom and Marquis de Sade gave that away) but I had no idea it would be so poorly done and be utterly boring. Pasolini wanted to make a political statement against the evils of Fascism with this. Fair enough, but could he not have made an interesting expose of the crimes that men, yes men, would stoop to for the sake of entertainment? The picture quality, the music and the editing were all choppy in my copy. And the acting is not that great either. Enough said.

Tokyo Drifter (1966 movie directed by Seijun Suzuki): Rating 7/10

Yakuza movies have come a long way since the 1960’s but a lot of the core ingredients can be found in this Suzuki movie – gangs making complicated deals, gangster trying to go clean, and the question of loyalty to name a few. In fact, this movie could be considered a precursor of sorts for the 90’s wave of Japanese crime movies. Two of the most interesting aspects of this movie are the usage of colour and music. The opening scene of black and white ends with a bright red colour image ( Sin City used the same technique with a bright red dress against black and white in the opening scene). And then there is the main character’s ever dependable blue suit. White snow, yellow backgrounds which change to red depending on the mood of the scene, etc all add to the visual appeal of the movie. The catchy title song adds to the movie’s appeal; the title song is repeated through the movie and the main character is found singing it as a monologue of sorts. However, other than these two aspects of colour and music, I found the movie slow and dull in parts. The story is straight forward -- a gangster and his boss are trying to go clean but they are sucked back into the business by a rival. This leads to killings and chases. Until, everything is resolved in the end. More or less…..

Broken Flowers, 2046, 5 x 2, Enduring Love and Off the Map

I have seen a mixed bag of movies recently with one or two surprises like 5x2 . So here’s a quick summary of the 5 movies:

Broken Flowers (written and directed by Jim Jarmusch): Rating 9/10

Any Jim Jarmusch movie is worth a watch. And Bill Murray has now perfected his dead-pan look – he can look funny without moving a muscle or even lifting a finger. So as expected Murray is perfect in this movie as a former Don Juan (named Don Johnston) who one day gets a mysterious letter in a pink envelope from one of his former lovers telling him that his 19 year old son may come looking for him. Who sent this letter? Johnston does not care. But his neighbour, Winston (played hilariously by Jeffrey Wright) is obsessed with solving the mystery and makes Johnston drive across America visiting his 5 previous lovers from 20 years ago.

2046 (written and directed by Wai Kar Wong): Rating 9 / 10

The visual beauty of the film is one would expect from Wai Kar Wong and his usual cinematographer Christopher Doyle. The mood and music gave the movie a feel of In the Mood For Love which made sense as the movie is supposed to be a sequel.  Ziyi Zhang looks gorgeous (as usual) and there are bit roles from a trio of heroines from Wong’s previous movies – Gong Li, Faye Wong and of course Maggie Cheung. Tony Leung is perfect and it is quite enjoyable to see characters from one movie inhabiting another movie, like Leung’s and Ah Ping’s character (the annoying friend who is always seeking to land the hot woman).

5x2 (directed by François Ozon): Rating 9.5/10

Can sweet love go bad? Ofcourse, it can! And this movie uses 5 scenes to illustrate how the innocence of love can be shattered by time. The movie works backward in giving us glimpses into the lives of the couple in question (the brilliant Valeria Bruni Tedeschi and Stéphane Freiss play Marion and Gilles respectively). We first see Marion and Gilles going through their divorce, followed by a simple party scene where we can see the strains of their marriage in the open. The next three scenes involve their child birth, marriage and first love. This really is a well done movie which in a few scenes manages to show the complexity of relationships. There is a scene near the start, right after the couple are divorced, Gilles tries to force himself onto Marion. When she turns him down, Gilles attacks her. Facing the door and with her back towards Gilles, Marion sharply shouts out. Something about that scene really stood out for me. We could tell upto this point that Marion is a basically good person but she can’t take Gilles abuse anymore. As the movie moves on we learn that Gilles has his fears (whatever they are) and alienates Marion when she needs him most, like leaving her alone during the child birth. When this movie opened in my city, it didn’t last too long. No one went to see it. Which is a shame really because this movie is worth seeing! I have not seen Bergman’s Scenes of Marriage so I have to regard 5x2 as one of the best relationship movies out there. On an unrelated note, both the lead actors and Michael Lonsdale (who plays Marion’s father) had bit roles in Munich . Lonsdale played the impressive Papa in Spielberg’s movie.

Enduring Love (directed by Roger Michell): Rating 6/10

What a mess! An absolute mess! I am sure Ian McEwan’s novel is much more absorbing than this movie. Even though the movie starts out with one of the most unique opening scenes – a couple (played by the new Bond, Daniel Craig and Samantha Morton) head to an open field to have a picnic. They have their champagne glasses out when a hot air balloon suddenly lands behind them. A man falls out of the balloon’s basket and is trying to bring it to a stop while a little boy is helpless inside the basket. Joe (Daniel Craig) rushes to help the man and is immediately joined by a few other men who come in from different sides. The men manage to stop the balloon. But a gust of wind blows by and the balloon takes off with the men hanging onto the basket and an additional man hanging by the rope. As the balloon continues to rise, one man lets go of the basket. The others follow suit expect the man hanging onto the rope. Eventually, his grip loosens and he falls to his death. Now, there’s a whole range of possibilities as to where this movie could have gone. But it takes a turn towards the love crazy stalker angle with a difference – a man stalking another man. Jed (played by Rhys Ifans) believes that he and Joe shared a special love when the two of them prayed together for the dead man. Also, there are some subplots put in the movie only for the reason of trying to cover different elements of the novel but not for the benefit of the screenplay (one of the subplots was why did a man who was afraid of heights not let go of the balloon rope? And if never took risks in his life, why did he rush to help a complete stranger?). The movie is sharply shot but it could have been much more engaging.

Off the Map (2003 movie tenderly directed by Campbell Scott): Rating 8/10

What a surprise this movie was! I had never heard of this one but picked it up based on the interesting pairing of Joan Allen and Sam Elliot. The two of them play a couple (Arlene and Charley) who really live life off the map – they live in an isolated house in the middle of nowhere with no phone and no tv. The couple hunt for their own food and try to be as self-sufficient as possible. They have a young bright 12 year old daughter, Bo (played amazingly by Valentina de Angelis). Bo wants to leave her home when she grows up and move to the city to lead a normal life. She is very mature for her age and is tired of her parent’s unorthodox ways. One day, the couple gets a letter in the mail informing them they are being audited by the IRS. Arlene finds that odd as their annual household income is less than $5000 dollars. Moreover, Charley does not work and is continuously depressed. When the tax auditor shows up, Bo believes this is her ticket for freedom. But as it turns out, the auditor gets sick and ends up living in the household as well. Bo is infuriated at the adults around her and at times seems like the only mature person. The young Valentina is so perfectly cast -- you can see the intensity in her eyes and she really steals the movie with her strong lively performance. Joan Ackermann adapted her own play for this movie and Campbell Scott has done a good job of tenderly portraying the different characters as they go about their lives (odd yet simple) in New Mexico.

The Machinist

Directed by Brad Andersen, written by Scott Kosar: Rating 9/10

Making movies is a highly complex process. And The Machinist demonstrates that perfectly. After not finding any funding for the movie for almost 2 years, Andersen and Kosar found a Spanish producer. Which meant that Barcelona had to be made to look like L.A, and that involved carefully making changes in everyday filming like replacing Spanish licence plates with American ones, Spanish traffic signs with English language props, etc. But the most challenging aspect of the movie had to be to get the lead actor to look like 120 pounds. How can a male look that skinny? By not eating ofcourse! And that is exactly what Christian Bale did -- he didn’t eat for an extended length and ends up looking like the human skeleton that was required for this role.

The story has shades of other movies ( Fight Club mostly and Memento to a lesser extent) and keeps one guessing as to what is going on -- Trevor Reznik has not been able to sleep for a year. He works the graveyard shift as a machinist. He is losing weight on a daily basis. Slowly, he starts losing his mind as well. Incidentally, he starts getting paranoid at the same time as he meets Ivan. Who is the mysterious Ivan? Images get hazy as Trevor tries to stay awake to find out what really is going on.

Overall, I quite liked this movie. The build up was amazing and even though the ending was subdued, it was logical. The entire movie is wickedly shot with excellent production values. The gray and dark visuals combined with the eerie background score give the movie a dark feel, something straight out of a Kafka novel. As far as the locations go, I think in a few scenes, I could make out that the setting was not America at all (I think the subway trains was one), but I figured it might have been a small American town which had some European elements. But I didn’t imagine the entire movie was shot in Barcelona.

And despite all the hardwork and sacrifice by the new Batman, did this movie really find an audience in North America? No. Making movies is a really complex process? No, that is incorrect. Making good movies is a really complex process!

Z, Midaq Alley and Central Station

Z (1969 movie directed by Costa-Gavras): Rating 9.5/10

I tried reading the book by Vassili Vassilikos but I soon got tired. I was sure there was a wicked story buried in there but I didn’t make it past the initial pages. Instead I opted for the movie and I am glad I did. This is one of the best movies I have seen! Along with the Battle of Algiers , this is one of my favourite movies. And interestingly enough, like that movie, this one is in French and shot in Algiers as well. This is an excellent political movie which shows how quickly freedom can evaporate and how abuse of power can cripple the truth. A political leader is hit on the head and eventually dies. But proving his death was a murder turns out to be quite an ordeal. The movie moves at a quick pace and the footage is shot in a very realistic way, with nothing flashy or glossy. And in the end, despite all the truth being exposed, nothing is done. The lies continue and more lies are spun until the truth never seemed to exist in the first place. Sounds quite familiar to modern times! And if a movie can remain timeless, well that is just perfect.

Midaq Alley (1995 movie directed by Jorge Fons): Rating 6.5/10

It was never a good idea to watch a movie right after I finished watching Z because any movie would have been a let-down. And sure enough, Midaq Alley was a huge disappointment. The only reason I picked up this movie was because I wanted to see how Naguib Mahfouz’s book was adapted from Cairo to Mexico City. The story was generic enough that it would have been easy to adapt but I still wanted to see how it turned out. This movie was made quite a few years before Amores Perros and contains the same structure – one incident is shown, one story thread is followed, then the movie rewinds to that initial incident and follows another character’s thread. However, Amores Perros was brilliant and engaging, it focused on three central stories. Whereas Midaq Alley diverges too much from the original characters shown in the first scene and after a lengthy running time of 140 minutes, tries to tie everything together. By that point, I had lost interest. It contains decent acting (Salma Hayek is the only major star on the cover) and shot nicely.

Central Station (1998 movie directed by Walter Salles): Rating 7/10

Road movies are tricky, either you like them or you don’t. In a year where my favourite movie was a Brazilian road movie, Cinema, Aspirins and Vultures , I wanted to see how what I thought of this highly praised Salles movie. I knew the movie would be well shot because Walter Carvalho was the cinematographer. And sure enough, it is a visual delight. The technical aspects are all top notch (smooth editing) and the acting is very good. But I was not floored by this one. This one is much better than Salles’s Behind the Sun which I gave a higher rating because I actually cared for that movie. If one gets hooked emotionally by Central Station then one will love it. At the start of the movie, the credits mention that the movie is based on an idea by Walter Salles. As soon as I saw the letter writer character, my first instinct was that Salles got the idea from Mira Nair’s Salaam Bombay where Irfan Khan plays a letter writer who takes money from people but never sends their letters. It was a minor character so I figured Salles expanded on that. Ofcourse, he adds a real story and more depth to a cheating letter writer’s character. Maybe if I had seen this some other day, I might have liked it a bit more.

3 classics, a Bully and some Mango Souffle

The Last Picture Show (1971 movie directed by Peter Bogdanovich, written by Larry McMurtry): Rating 8/10

Ah life in a small town! It can be boring, painful and plain slow. Nothing seems to happen. The longing for ‘something’ makes people do crazy things. Crazy things lead to more crazy things and in the end increase the already piled up list of problems. If one has not lived in small town North America, all the characters and situations will seem boring. But things shown here are quite accurate (to some extent). In fact, the problems of small towns are indeed replicated in modern suburbia environments (a point well explored by American Beauty and various other movies). The Last Picture Show showcases young actors such Randy Quaid, Jeff Bridges and a very beautiful 20 year old Cybill Shepherd. The movie is sad, tragic but well worth the watch.

The Long Goodbye (1973 movie directed by Robert Altman): Rating 7/10

The detective, the unsolved crime, the femme fatale and a pile of dead bodies! A classic detective crime thriller! And considering this movie was made back in 1973, it built on the existing body of film noir movies and laid the groundwork for future genre thrillers. The best thing about the movie is Elliott Gould’s perfect portrayal of Philip Marlowe, a laid back detective who will calmly strike a light for his cigarette anywhere. Not a great movie but it definitely kept my interest.

Apocalypse Now (1979 movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola)

Rating: A very subjective scale of 6 – 8

‘The Horror’, oh ‘the horror’! Amazingly I had never seen this classic movie until now. Considered to be one of the best movies ever made, this movie really gave Coppola a headache and thrust a financial burden on his shoulders. A dazzling cast directed by one of the leading film directors of his time-- What more can one ask for? I only opted watching the original 2 hour 30 min cut as opposed to the newly restored 3 hour + version. And I was severely disappointed. I had high expectations but in the end, I couldn’t care less. Some movies have to be watched in the right mood and I tried to keep an open mind for this one. Sure, it is beautifully shot, well acted and the music score compliments the movie but I just didn’t think it was that stellar. I really expected to be led into the heart of darkness so to speak but I didn’t think it was dark enough. Ofcourse, one’s imagination should fill in the details and not everything must be shown to the viewer but in this day and age of shock gruesome movies we get darkness served raw and cold to us.

Bully (2001 movie directed by Larry Clark): Rating 8.5 / 10

Now I found this movie to dark and chilling! Larry Clark really shook things up with Kids and here he raises the bar even more. Once again, he is not afraid to keep his camera focused on kids (too long sometimes) by showing us what they are doing (screwing or getting into trouble) and what they are thinking. The movie is based on a real life incident about a high school bully and his planned murder by his victims (friends and colleagues). There is probably a lot of improvisation done to the characters but the overall reported incidents might be true to some extent. A boy bullies his childhood friend, bosses people around, rapes a girl when he feels like yet pretends to be innocent in front of his parents. When his best friend can’t take it anymore, his girlfriend suggests killing the bully as the only option out. And this is where the fun and games stop. How the kids go about planning the murder and how they try to cope with their actions forms the rest of the movie. This movie is much more structured than Kids and is well made. It does show that in this day and age of suburban boredom and video game land, kids can’t fully comprehend the consequences of their actions and some of them can’t even differentiate between thought and action.

Mango Souffle (2002 movie directed by Mahesh Dattani): Rating 4/10

Good to know that Mahesh Dattani redeemed himself by making a good movie like Morning Raga in 2004 because Mango Souffle is plain awful. The story is not that bad really but what makes it painful to watch is the terrible acting; none of the leading actors have any expressions on their faces and they look wooden while delivering their lines. Dattani adapted his own play for this movie and I am sure the stage play was much more interesting. Ofcourse, this is not a regular topic you see on Indian cinema so it was good to see something different made. It is clear that the Dattani has taken pains to make this movie but why couldn’t he have made the actors act?

Love amongst Canadian Mountains

Brokeback Mountain (Directed by Ang Lee): Rating 10/10

Love -- that complicated simple painful joyful confusing emotion! So many love stories are made yearly yet few of them manage to capture the essence of love perfectly. But Brokeback Mountain gets it right. Perfectly right! The fact that the love shown on screen is between two men does not make a difference. Ang Lee has crafted such a perfect framework for a love story that even if the two main characters were a man and a woman, a boy and a girl or even two women, the movie’s core would still be the same. Now, if one does not get involved emotionally in this movie, then it won’t seem that great of a movie. One might still appreciate the beautiful cinematography and the excellent acting but the simple story might not seem too big of a deal. Sometimes the best movies are the ones with a very simple story. Different people might take different things away from this movie. And that is what good movies do -- each person should feel something different or get a different message. Love is complicated enough, love is painful enough that it seems bloody frustrating when ignorant people put restrictions on others. Why? Because of what they believe in! Why do they believe in such things? Because they were told to! Why were they told to? Because that is how things are supposed to be! Why? Because it is written! Why is it written so? Because it was spoken so! Why was it spoken so? Because that is how it is supposed to be, dammit!!!! Well I don’t agree that is how things are supposed to be but the world works on such beliefs.

When I had first heard or seen the trailers of this movie, I had my doubts – I felt the movie might be contrived for award season. But I still wanted to check it out. And I am very glad I did. I got hooked emotionally yet at no point did the movie feel contrived. Did the original story focus on the essence of love? Did Annie Proulx use two cowboys on purpose to show that love is such a powerful emotion that it can carve past the tough exteriors? Or did she want to truly show that love is the same, no matter the sex of the person involved? Whatever the original intentions, I really liked this onscreen adaptation.

It is interesting that my top 2 favourite movies this year have had an underlying theme of friendship between the two male leads. Cinema, Aspirins and Vultures was about friendship and seeking freedom; Brokeback is about friendship which turns to love; it is also about seeking freedom but of a different kind. One movie I saw in a film festival, one in a multiplex! Interesting year in movies!

Best Films of 2005

I am not one for making best of the year movie lists. One can't really compare different kinds of movies which cover different genres and cultures. For example, it is not feasible to pit a Brazilian road movie against a comic book Hollywood movie. Still one can have their subjective views. So here are my personal biased views for which movies I enjoyed best in this year.

Note: a lot of movies that I liked this year were officially released in 2004 but I didn't get a hold of them until this year (like Closer and Sideways). So I am not including them in this list...

1) Hollywood movies: in no particular order

Brokeback Mountain
Batman Begins
Sin City
Crash
The Constant Gardener
Good Night, and Good Luck
Syriana

I liked parts of Lord of War and The Interpreter but both these movies were a bit contrived and cliched.

2) Canadian movies:

The Dark Hours
Memories Affectives (English title, Looking for Alexander)

3) Indian and Bollywood movies:

Amu
Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara
Black
Socha Na Tha
Sehar
Parineeta (despite the flawed ending scene, the breaking of the wall)
Paheli
Bluffmaster
Matrabhoomi (I know this was a 2003 movie but it got released in North America this year).


4) Other Foreign movies:

Cinema, Aspirins and Vultures
Yes
3-Iron
L'Enfant
Mountain Patrol (Kekexili)
Sepet
Turtles Can Fly
Cache
Head-On
The Beat that my Heart Skipped

---

If I had to pick just one film as my absolute favourite of 2005, then it would have to be the Brazilian film Cinema, Aspirins and Vultures.

End of the year for those song and dance movies

It was yet another dismal year regarding Bollywood movies. The quality seems to be getting worse and worse. The one thing which stood out most was that more and more directors are freely copying Hollywood (old and new) movies. And starting in 2006, directors will not only remake old Bollywood movies, they will copy Korean and Hong Kong movies as well. 2005 was another year when Amitabh Bachchan made appearances in no less than 10 movies. It seems without him the movie industry does struggle. When he finally leaves the movies, alas, there won't be anyone to truly replace him. It was refreshing to see Nana Patekar make a comeback in a few movies with some sizzling roles. Kay Kay Menon was a welcome addition to the film industry as well. So here's a quick recap of the last batch of movies seen this year, starting from the worst:

1) Shaadi #1 (zero direction given by David Dhawan): Rating 0/10

This really was a terrible movie. Pathetic acting, no direction, crap script and with the exception of one song (Aayeshi), the music and songs were awful.

2) Mr. Ya Ms. (confused direction by Antara Mali and Sachin Puranik): Rating 1/10

Argh! A completely unwatchable copy of the 1991 Ellen Barkin movie Switch . The stupid background music & sounds get very annoying and over the top after the first few minutes. Antara Mali does a valiant effort to copy Barkin's performance but this one comes off as a very poor B grade movie. Could have been much better but everything just seems substandard.

3) Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena (written and mis-directed by Suparn Verma): Rating 3/10

Confidence was not the best Hollywood movie. And a copy of that can't be expected to make waves. This movie could still have been saved with better acting and a half decent script. Ofcourse, it would help if the director told his actors to do more rather than stand around and drink + smoke while saying their lines.

4) Main, Meri Patni Aur Woh (directed by Chandan Arora): Rating 6/10

Despite the poor rating, this one is much better than the average fare. Ofcourse, the reason this movie is worthwhile is because of Rajpal Yadav's acting. He is the thread that holds this movie packed with substandard acting. The pacing is really bad as the movie stalls and refuses to ever get moving.

5) Garam Masala (directed by Priyadarshan): Rating 6.5/10

What saves this movie is Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal's acting. Otherwise, the movie suffers from over-acting by John Abraham and no acting from the newcomer actresses. If the first 30 minutes were clipped off, this movie would have been a wicked case study in males (as lab rats). Why is the main male bringing on agony upon himself by being engaged to 4 women? The other men observe him and start to lie accordingly. If another male was brought in the apartment, he too would have started lying. Oh Asrani and Rajpal Yadav are good too.

6) Home Delivery (directed by Sujoy Ghosh): Rating 7/10

For all its problems, this movie is a breath of fresh air. It is different and atleast tries to have something to say. There are some needless subplots and the pacing is quite tiresome in the second half but it was much better than the rest of the crap out there. The imagery of Vivek Oberoi's character stuck in a glass box perfectly conveys the male sentiment when it comes to marriages and family commitments.

7) Bluffmaster (directed by Rohan Sippy): Rating 8/10

Compared to the rest of the Bollywood crap, this one shines like a diamond. Ofcourse, it is copied from The Sting and has shades of The Game in its ending. Excellent acting by Nane Patekar, a wicked soundtrack and some snappy dialogues make this an enjoyable watch. And for a change, an entire Bollywood movie shot in Mumbai! Mumbai looks gorgeous and so does Priyanka Chopra. Better use could have been made of Boman Irani..

War and Formulas

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War (written & directed by Je-gyu Kang): Rating 6.5/10

Running at 140 minutes, this one is an epic. Unfortunately, the length also ruins what could have been a really good movie. The movie starts off in the present when the remains of soldiers killed in the Korean War are uncovered. A case of mistaken identity leads into the flashback story of two brothers who fought in the Korean War. When the war broke out, the brothers tried to leave the village with their family. As the two brothers are temporarily separated in the confusion, the younger brother, Jin-Seok, is forcefully drafted. And when the elder brother, Jin-Tae, tries to get him back, he finds himself drafted against his wishes as well. Even though there was a rule that only one male per family would be drafted, both brothers find themselves in the trenches. Jin-Tae wants to protect his innocent younger brother (Jin-Seok) and tries to make a deal with his superiors – if he volunteers for the most dangerous missions, he wants the superiors to send Jin-Seok home. But as it turns out, Jin-Tae is a real strong character and becomes a decorated hero. Jin-Seok can’t recognize his brother anymore; he sees a peace loving person transformed into a greedy bloody thirsty man. Jin-Seok is unsure of Jin-Tae’s motives on taking on the risky missions – is it personal glory or brotherly concern? And just when it seems the war will be over, the brothers find themselves in another complicated mess where they have to make some difficult choices again. This last drawn out hour really takes the movie off its rails. If the entire question of switching loyalties with North /South was not introduced, the movie might have been much more compelling.

Formula 17 (directed by Yin-jung Chen): Rating 6/10

Boy 1 sees hot Boy 2. Boy 1 is told by his friends that Boy 2 is out of his league. But amazingly, stud Boy 2 develops a liking for innocent Boy 1. So Boy 1 and Boy 2 hook up. But Boy 2 has commitment issues and breaks if off. Boy 1 is heart broken. And after a lot of sugar and syrup ooze through this colorfully shot movie, Boy 1 and Boy 2 end up together after Boy 1’s friends do some work. The movie is cute and funny in parts but it is essentially a predictable lovey-dovey movie with only boys (as opposed to the usual boy-girl flicks).

Munich

Directed by Steven Spielberg: Rating – sliding scale

Oh my God, what a great movie! Another masterpiece! Blah Blah…whenever a Spielberg movies comes out, critics fall over themselves to sing praises. Some do find faults but others go over the moon. But this time around, Spielberg got a lot of flack for making this movie from people who had never seen the movie or will probably never see the movie. And just like the nonsense surrounding The Passion by Mel Gibson, all the criticism is unfounded. So what is this movie about? Is this movie made like the director truly would have wanted to make it? Or this movie compromised at every step?

1972 Munich Oympics. Palestinian armed gunmen storm the Olympics ground, kill 2 Israeli athletes and take 9 other hostages. Eventually, they end up killing the 9 hostages. The world is shocked. Israel decides to respond strongly. So it hires a secret group which goes out and kills all the people behind the Munich Killings. That is what history has recorded more or less. What about the real story?

Munich starts off with archive footage which adds some realism to the movie. Then the movie focuses on the Israeli response in recruiting people to go kill the men behind the Munich killing. From that point on, the movie moves from one killing to another, showing us how the response was planned, how the group joked and tried to balance their lives against the violence they were committing. But the movie humanizes the Palestinian men behind the Munich killings. This is what critics of the movie will hate. How can the movie care about the Palestinian people? They believe those people should have no voice. Well Spielberg gives them a voice, even throws in some intelligent debate about freedom and the need for having a home. In one scene, the movie tries to show the complicated threads involved in the killings and how there might be multiple parties involved. The hunters will eventually become the hunted. And the hunted might become the hunters again. The cycle continues. Fine and dandy then!

There are two sides for every story. There have to be! A movie about such an incident can’t get away by simply supporting one side and ignoring the other. With that in mind, Spielberg does try to give both sides a fair share but the problem is a lot of scenes feel forced and compromised. Sometimes, it seems the movie is a sugar coated layer on top of the real hatred that lurks beneath. How are a lot of people on both sides so calm and just lovey dovey? Critics I am sure will talk about the movie’s complexity and depth but the problems is I didn’t seen any of that. The movie is as straight forward as they come. In order to make a truly gritty movie which takes on the issues head-on might require a non-Hollywood person; it might require an outsider who is uncompromising in making the movie. I keep thinking of Battle of Algiers and how it was a brilliant gritty movie. I keep thinking of Spielberg’s first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and how raw those scenes were. But Munich seems flossed up. It does not have the documentary feel that Syriana did nor does it have the rawness of Battle of Algiers. But maybe that is understandable. It is a Hollywood movie with a lot at stake. The fact that Spielberg made this movie has probably got enough people mad at him. I just hope that one day someone makes this movie the way it is meant to be made – raw, gritty and uncompromising. On a positive note, the movie does not feel like a Spielberg movie. At no point does it overdose on sappy emotion, at no point does it tug at our heart and wants us to shed a tear. I am still not sure how to rate this movie? I would give it a 7/10, maybe a maximum of an 8 (maybe…). It is better seen as an action thriller than a political movie. It still feels like a multiplex film with few tweaks made to reach out and create some awareness in the audience. Schindler’s List was quite amazing. However, Munich is not on that same wavelength. Not even close. Also, since the topic of violence creates more violence is something that I have seen in endless Asian political movies, I was not as awed by those statements. Ofcourse, on the flip side, I can’t remember too many American movies trying to show two sides of an issue and even showing that violence might not be the answer (gasp!). So this might be a step forward from Hollywood’s perspective? Oh, the running time of 2 hours and 45 minutes is a bit too long though.

Easy Riders, Taxi Drivers, Kids, Adults, Network execs, Ballet Dancers, Butchers and Thugs

Tons of movies to go through this time around! A few of the selections came from two Peter Biskind books – Down and Dirty Pictures and Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. Down and Dirty Pictures outlines the backroom drama regarding American Independent movies and their struggles with Miramax. While Easy Riders.. talks about the revolution of cinema in the 1970’s. So here are a few quick notes then:

Easy Rider (1969 movie directed by Dennis Hopper): Rating 8.5/10

Two men get on their bikes and ride across the American landscape to the crazy world of Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Along the way, they pick up a hitchhiker who leads them to a commune, run into trouble with narrow minded small town folk and try a cocktail of drugs. The movie is as laid back as the title suggests and is believed to have changed people’s way of making movies. It is an interesting viewing and any other ending than the one shown really would not have had such an impact.

Taxi Driver (1976 movie directed by Martin Scorsese): Rating 9.0/10

Robert De Niro is perfect as Travis Bickle, an ex-marine who takes up a job as a taxi driver because he can’t sleep at nights. We never get to see Bickle’s past horrors but as the movie progresses, we get a sense of his inner demons; his character is beautifully etched out and we can sense he is about to explode. Jodie Foster was only 13-14 when she acted as a hooker in this movie. Some of the camera angles and shots are quite extraordinary. No wonder this movie is considered one of the classics.

Kids (1995 movie directed by Larry Clark): Rating 8/10

Is this really a movie or a documentary? The dialogues and the kids used give the movie a sense of realism that wouldn’t have been achieved by professional actors. This is not a pleasant happy movie. At no time do things get better for any of the kids but only worse. The kids live in a world of sex, drugs, alcohol and really have no plans for a future. The main character, Telly’s (Leo Fitzpatrick) goal is to deflower as many young girls as possible. He gives zero seconds of thought to his actions or consequences. Same goes for the other characters in the movie. There are powerful first time performances from Rosario Dawson and Chloe Sevigny as well. I liked this movie much better than Larry Clark’s 2002 Ken Park.

Safe (1995 movie written and directed by Todd Haynes): Rating 9/10

How can one interpret this movie? As one that makes a statement or one that tries to make a satire out of the statement it shows? I believe that the movie does indeed contain a statement but it also shows the satirical side of things as a smaller subset. I don’t believe it is a plain satire or a straight forward one making just a statement. On one hand, Safe is a chilling movie about the degradation of our environment and the human soul/ body; and on the other side, the movie takes a satirical look at how some people try to exploit the environmental issues for their benefit. Julianne Moore plays Carol White, a simple housewife. Carol is quite busy as she has taken up a lot of interior house projects. One day, she gets slightly sick. Her husband is not amused nor takes efforts to understand her symptoms. Slowly, her health worsens while her doctor believes Carol is fine. The doctor attributes her bad health to Carol’s new fruit diet and stress. One day, Carol comes across an ad which talks about the exact symptoms that she is feeling. When she goes to see an allergist in the ad, she finds that there are other people who have the same problems as her. The symptoms are categorized as human reactions to the millions of chemicals polluting the environment. Eventually, Carol checks into a wellness camp which seeks to treat people like her. This is a well made and well acted movie with the smart camera shots showing Carol’s isolation and her plight perfectly. Are the chemicals we dispense in the environment harmful to humans? Ofcourse they are. Do we know which ones are the worst for us? Yes and No. Will we curb the dangers of these chemicals in time? Not until the companies manufacturing the chemicals take the environment risks seriously. Have some advancements being made since this movie came out? Yes.

Far from Heaven (2002 movie written and directed by Todd Haynes): Rating 9/10

Yet another well made movie from Haynes. He manages to weave together two touchy topics in one story – racism and homosexuality. Cathy (Julianne Moore) and Frank (Dennis Quaid) are a model American Family (with two lovely children) who are well respected in their community. But when Cathy catches her husband kissing another man, her world is shook up. In our fragile state, she finds consolation in her gardener (Raymond played by Dennis Haysbert). But her friendship with Raymond causes alienation for Cathy. This is 1950’s America after all. And even her husband turns his back on her. So what is a woman to do? Conform and put on a smile or defy the standards? It would have been easy to pick one option and run with it but the movie does try to show that all the three main characters are indeed sensible people who continuously try to rationalize and make a logical decision. The ending doesn’t really give us a firm conclusion but given the context of the movie, it is indeed rational.

Network (1976 movie directed by Sidney Lumet): Rating 10/10

Wow. Nothing like a great surprise – you pick up a movie you never heard anything about and the movie ends up being just amazing. The entire premise of Network is fictional but there is clearly thought put into the writing by Paddy Chayefsky. The movie follows the newscast team of a fictional television station, UBS, and their struggles to keep up with the big 3 American TV networks. This movie makes a great combination with Good Night, and Good Luck. The acting is excellent all around, which accounts for the Oscar wins and nominations. And Faye Dunaway is electric!! She is intelligent, sexy and ruthless at the same time. Totally loved this movie!!!

The Company (directed by Robert Altman): Rating 5/10

Sometimes it is hard to watch a movie objectively – it is difficult to give an accurate rating when one simply wants to switch the movie off. I knew this was a ballet movie but since I have enjoyed other movies in this genre before, I decided to give it a viewing. Also, I sort of felt it would be interesting to see how Altman handled this script. In the end, I wish I had not seen this movie; it was a complete disappointment. Sure some of the ballet steps are indeed excellent but I just wasn’t interested. Altman’s style does indeed let us know some of the characters just by observing their interactions with other characters. Example, we really get a sense of Malcolm McDowell’s character by watching him try to control every aspect of his company’s production. The people dynamics shown in the movie were done very well but the rest of the framework around the characters was weak, atleast in my view.

Il Macellaio, (The Butcher, 1998 movie directed by Aurelio Grimaldi): Rating 4/10

Sometimes a title gives a lot away about a movie. So with a title like The Butcher, you know that the movie will revolve around a character with that profession. The movie starts off with an elite couple looking to adopt a child – we seem them going through a rigorous interview process. The husband is a famous music conductor who has to travel frequently to far off lands for his famous concerts. When the wife’s doctor recommends that she should include some meat into her mostly vegetarian diet, she visits her local butcher shop. The butcher is a ladies man who chats up all the women who come to his shop. But he does not smile to the wife. She in turn also looks at him coldly. Now, we have some seen some nude shots of the wife upto this point in the movie so we are prepared for what is to come. Sure enough, the movie teasingly makes its way to the sex scenes with the wife and butcher. And after the sex is over, the movie ends. That is about it.

The Deceivers (1998 movie directed by Nicholas Meyer, based on a John Masters novel): Rating 8/10

Pierce Brosnan and Shashi Kapoor in the same movie? Well that cast pairing made this an interesting pick. As it turns out, Shashi Kapoor’s role is only minor but that did not prevent this Merchant Ivory production from using his name on the covers. The movie tells the alleged real life tale of a British solider who uncovers the secret workings of Thugees, a cultish group who kill and rob travelers in the name of the Goddess, Kali. The name Thugs actually was derived from this Indian group (something which I didn’t know until I saw this movie). Are all the historical aspects shown in the movie true? I don’t think so. I am sure some aspects were cleaned up to give the British soldier, Willaim Savage, a lot more credit that history might have given. Brosnan does play his role really well and when he covers his face with mud, you actually forget you are looking at a future James Bond (in my case, I was looking at a former Bond before he became Bond). Saeed Jaffrey is also good as one of Kali’s followers. But Shashi Kapoor is a huge disappointment even in his tiny role. Yes this movie is pure fluff but I liked it; I actually bought into the story and found myself intrigued.

Syriana, Brazil, Bihar, Harlem, Venice and a Parisian apartment

With a tall order of locations, this week’s viewing provided a good range of movies. End result: a mixed bag of likes and dislikes.

Syriana (Directed by Stephen Gaghan): Rating a very solid 9/10 (or 8+)

Tell me something I don’t know! Seriously tell me something I don’t know. For the record, I don’t live in a world where my news comes from only one tv channel. I am lucky enough to live in a world where there are books which are not only interesting but intelligent. I also live in a world where there exists art which is not only meant for entertainment. And speaking of entertainment, what about movies? What the hell is the point of a movie? What purpose does a movie like Syriana serve? If one likes this movie, then it does not matter. If one hates this movie, it does not matter either. It does not matter if one sees this movie or not. This movie will not change a thing in the real world. In the real world, lies are openly told. People believe it because they don’t have a choice. Governments lie, corporations lie, so what? We have been told to shut up and turn a blind eye. And then come movies like these. People will call this the truth and people will call this propaganda but in the end, it won’t change a thing. At the end of the day, the only thing the average man can do is to watch movies which affirm their beliefs about the lies that they already know. Because you see the average person needs to drive a car everyday, the average person needs a bus or an airplane or other transportation which relies on energy. Energy which is generated by OIL! Yup bloody OIL! Black oil, money oozing oil! Oil! People are killed, governments are toppled, money changes hands, a few men get together and smoke some cigars, some drink and some get fat (and the fat is not only because of money), jobs are lost, jobs are gained, ships move, cars are blown up, technology fails and movies are made. Syriana has the look and feel of Traffic because Gaghan was the screenwriter of the 2000 award winning film. Syriana is more complicated than Traffic and it does not explain everything. Is it hard to follow? Not really. The movie jumps from location to location but it has no choice because the movie tries to cover all the essential angles – covert operations, corporation take-overs, corruption, rich rulers, good noble rulers who are trying to make a difference, the unemployed worker, the corruptor, the family man, etc. Everything is presented. There is no start and no end. We get a slice of the happenings in the crazy OIL world. We also get some very realistic portrayals of life in the lower rungs of the oil crazy world. Finally a movie which accurately shows the daily life of foreign workers in the compounds!

Syriana forms an interesting trilogy of movies in 2005 with The Constant Gardener and Lord of War being the other. Put all these movies together and some very hard facts come out in the open. But like I said earlier, it won’t change a thing! One of my favourite movies of the year!!! Yet I can’t give it a perfect rating. Why? Because I wanted more angles to be covered, I wanted more lies to be shown.

Behind the Sun (Directed by Walter Salles): Rating 8/10

Walter Salles is well known now – Central Station and The Motorcycle Diaries are acclaimed movies. The Brazilian director really knows how to set the mood for South America. This time around, he shows Brazil as raw and hot as it is. Credit for that also goes to Walter Carvalho who shoots the movie beautifully. Do I just credit Carvalho (and not Salles also) for one of the best shot chase scenes I have seen? Two men running through a dried up tree field, one trying to kill the other and actually manages to do so. Running at break neck speed, the camera manages to not only keep pace but conveys the frantic chase of the prey and predator.

The setting: a hot Brazilian village. A family of four. Well there used to be more than 4. But the elder brother was killed by a rival family over land ownership. It is a constant family feud – one kills the other, then the other takes revenge and so on. Revenge is only taken on the one who committed the murder. No other members are killed. The kid (he has no given name) and his brother Tonio are caught in this family mess. Tonio is sick of his father’s revenge seeking ways but he has no choice. The kid is just starting to understand life. One day, two strangers drop by. The beautiful woman, Clara, gives the kid a picture book. His world starts to open, his imagination starts to form. Tonio falls for Clara. He seeks love but Tonio is a marked man. He killed and he will be killed next. Can he escape his fate? Anything is possible in the hot Brazilian sun. One story can be told yet another can happen!

Apaharan (Directed by Prakash Jha): Rating 7/10

Bihar – the hotbed of corrupt politics! Err, not corrupt but true politics -- politics of politics. Deals are made, parties are toppled and loyalties are switched. A new problem rears it ugly head in Bihar – kidnappings. Business men are kidnapped for money. The police don’t do a thing. Actually even if they wanted to, they can’t do a thing. Because the problem runs all the way from the top to the firmly rooted slums. I expected a much more gritty movie focused only on kidnappings. Yet the second half of the movie turns in the usual Company mould and ends up in a political match. And since it is Ajay Devgan involved, it does feels like a Company spin-off. Which is a shame really because Nana Patekar is quite amazing. Patekar seems to be back full time in movies now which is good news as he is one of the best Bollywood actors around. I had loved Jha’s previous movie Gangajaal which I thought was much more riveting than this effort (that also starred Ajay Devgan). And ofcourse, Jha has made classic films in the past like Mrityudand (Ayub Khan and Mohan Agashe reunite with Jha in Apaharan) and Hip, Hip Hurray. One thing is for sure – Prakash Jha knows his material really well. It is just that I was looking for a different kind of movie.

The Cotton Club (directed by Francis Ford Coppola): Rating 6.5/10

Harlem, 1928. Gangsters, jazz musicans, pretty women, drinks and tap dancing. It all takes place in the Cotton Club. Maybe if I saw this movie when it was released in 1984, I would have liked it better. But in this day and age of clichéd mobster movies (a genre that Coppola defined with his Godfather movies) and with the recent Chicago, watching the Cotton Club didn’t give me anything new. There was nothing fresh about it. The only interesting aspect was the ending sequence where stage performances and real scenes are mixed together so well that you can’t tell one from the other. Richard Gere does a little song in this one and you can tell the seeds of his Chicago singing routine were first laid here. A very young Diane Lane (she was 18-19 during the filming) can be found as can a young Nicolas Cage. Gregory Hines has a significant role, along with some tap dancing scenes (the impromptu tap dancing scenes performed in the movie are amazing). I was interested at the start but half-way through, I lost interest. You knew where this one was going.

The Merchant of Venice (Directed by Michael Radford): Rating 6/10

Sometimes too much Shakespeare is not a good thing! I remembered this story or so I thought I did. In reality, all I remembered was Bassanio (and his love for Portia), Antonio and Shylock with his demand of a pound of flesh. Was this the story? Or was the story about a Jew vs the Christian state? That is the version that gets flushed out in this adaptation. I can’t comment on this unless I go back and reread the story. That being said, when I saw the poster of the movie last year in London, I knew Al Pacino had to be playing the role of Shylock. And that he does perfectly. But I just didn’t care for this boring movie. Sure the sets (and costumes) look accurate, but that is not much of a feat really because some parts of Venice are so well preserved today that you can imagine how life was 300 years ago. Good acting overall but I just got tired of all the Jew vs Christian ideologies and all the mind games that Portia plays. Maybe some aspects in this story are outdated or maybe they are just not spoken out-loud anymore. Either way, I just didn’t care.

Not on the Lips (Directed by Alain Resnais): Rating 5/10

A French musical! If I had expected to see a French musical with Audrey Tautou, I wouldn’t have disliked this movie that much. I thought I was picking up a comedic film not a comedic musical. There is a big difference between the two.

Night and Gray

Good Night, and Good Luck (Directed by George Clooney): Rating 10/10

Fade to white. Cue microphone. The cigarette is lit. A puff of white smoke floats across the screen. And then the firm reassuring voice comes on the airways. What happens next? Well the news is reported, truth is told, facts are presented. What happens afterwards? Is it not obvious? -- the show is on the verge of being pulled because the truth can’t be presented! The audience don’t have time for politics, they want to be entertained. Moreover, what is the point of telling them everything? In times of national security, swift action must be taken. The evil people must be put away even when there is no evidence to put them away. Because the fate of the nation is at stake!

George Clooney directs an interesting story based on real incidents involving the CBS television station and Edward Murrow, an esteemed broadcaster. Murrow had no trouble in taking on controversial topics head on in pursuit of telling the truth. But things get nasty when he decides to reveal the lies of Senator McCarthy. Releasing such a movie in the present day will surely make this film an easy target for a large section of the American population. And likewise, another section of the public might embrace the movie for outlining the parallels that existed in America during the Cold War and present day. The movie is just around the 90 minute mark and it is a movie that you wish does not end really. It is engaging and interesting. The camera hardly leaves the broadcasting room and even when it does, it does not wander too far; it heads to the jazz bar that the tv crew frequently visit or the camera heads to the home of a married couple working for the station (Robert Downey Jr. in a small role). By keeping the locales limited, we are not side-tracked from the movie’s focus which is the battle that Murrow and his co-workers faced in broadcasting the truth. Not much insight is given to the main characters which is a good thing. Because we can judge for ourselves who these people are by observing them in action. The real star of the movie is clearly David Strathairn who is BRILLAINT as Edward Murrow. It is never an easy job to play real life characters but Strathairn does it perfectly. There are some other very powerful roles as well – Frank Langella is amazing as the manager who has to make a difficult choice about how his station is run; Ray Wise displays all the tragic emotions of Don Hollenbeck -- you can actually see Hollenbeck breaking down as he hears harsh words written about him in the media.

I was reminded of The Insider while watching this movie – that was a movie which dealt with another controversial issue CBS television tackled (the tobacco companies). Such movies have to make sure they get the facts right otherwise they would be crucified. But can any movie get the facts totally right? Good Night, and Good Luck avoids the problems of getting facts wrong by cleverly using archive footage to present its story. How can one argue when the lies are presently as they were told back in the 50’s?

Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mera (Directed by Jahnu Barua): Rating 8/10

The human mind is the most complex thing in the universe. It has to be. Because it can not only analyze the real world, it can create imaginary worlds. And then sometimes, just for fun, it can mix both the real and imaginary world and create something else completely. When a person is young, they can reasonably have some control over their mind (one would hope). But the problems start when a person gets older. Then they start to lose control of their mind and that is when things really get out of hand. Can one stop such behaviour? And this is where all our science comes to a complete failure.

Anupam Kher plays a loving father. One fine day, he leaves home, goes to a university class and starts teaching. But when the students tell him he is in the wrong classroom, he feels embarrassed and leaves. Flash forward a couple of years. While having breakfast, he calls for his wife. When his daughter tells him that her mother died a year and a half ago, he is shocked. He can’t remember her death and he believes he only went to the wrong university classroom a day before. And slowly he starts forgetting even more things. Until one day, he proclaims that he can’t be forgiven because he killed Mahatma Gandhi. He is sorry for his crime. Despite everything, the daughter tries to keep a grip on things but even she starts to lose her mind. So what is the real story? Sanjay Chauhan has done a good job on penning together a very emotional yet intelligent movie. Even though the ending might seem a bit preachy, it seems to fit in the framework of the movie. Because it was Gandhi who said that if a person believes that the rest of the world is wrong while they are right, well he must be a fool instead. So sometimes if one believes they are guilty, it is easier to believe that everyone else is equally guilty. That lessens one’s guilt. Anupam Kher is perfect in his role, in fact too perfect. Urmila proves once again that she really thrives in these off-beat roles. Boman Irani is probably one of my favourite actors at the moment – he is so vibrant, so full of life that even when he has to deliver a few lines, he does it with ease. Even though the acting of the secondary actors is not upto par, this is still a very interesting movie. Movies like this prove that there are atleast some intelligent Hindi movies being made in India. We know that Bengali and South Indian movies have some character to them, but good Hindi movies are rare ever since Bollywood came to power.

Cup Finals and Kitchen Stories

Cup Final (Directed by Eran Riklis): Rating 6.5/10

Ah Football! How it brings different people together! Cohen is all set to attend the 1982 World Cup Final in Spain. He has his game tickets and can’t wait to attend matches of favourite Italian national team. But his plans are ruined when Israel invades Lebanon. Since Cohen is in the military, he has no choice but to head to the border and sit around, hoping to not get killed. And things get worse for him as he is kidnapped by a bunch of freedom fighters (who are fighting for Palestine’s cause). These people take Cohen and his friend hostage and move around the country, hoping to use the two captured men as bargaining tools when they reach Beirut. It turns out that two of the freedom fighters have some Italian blood in them and support the Italian national team. Even though Cup Final is a contrived movie, it feels sincere. It has the innocence shown in The Cup which was a movie about two Buddhist monk kids who go to great lengths to see the 1998 World Cup Final. As Cohen and his captors easily move across a war ravaged land, they manage to catch snippets of the World Cup and the Italian national team’s progress. And as expected the movie ends just as Italy thrashed W. Germany 3-1 to win the World Cup.

Kitchen Stories (Directed by Bent Hamer): Rating 8/10

After watching Bent Hamer’s Factotum at the London Film Festival, I was keen to see this 2003 award winning film that made the Norwegian director a known name. Kitchen Stories is a simple yet touching work. In order to better improve the kitchen lives of house wives, the Swedish Home Research Institute decides to investigate the kitchen habits of single men. So they send out a bunch of researchers to Norway. Each researcher will study the habits of a single male host (who volunteered and are awarded a toy horse in return for their troubles). The researchers will live in a trailer outside the host’s home and be free to walk into the host’s home at any time; he will sit on a high chair in the host’s kitchen and make notes about the single male’s walking patters, kitchen usage, etc. One strict rule is that the researcher should never interact with the host and not disturb his life in any possible way. The results of the experiment will be in jeopardy if the researcher is found to be talking with the host. But is it truly possible to understand someone merely by observing them? Isn’t it necessary to talk to someone to understand what they want? Folke is meant to objectively study Isak but Isak is a very difficult person to observe – for example, Isak turns off the kitchen light when his researcher is making notes, he hangs his wet laundry in the kitchen so that he can’t be observed. But slowly but surely, the two men begin to understand each other despite hardly speaking. And here lies in the beauty of the movie. Why bog down a film with dialogue when expressions can speak so much? Eventually they talk to each other and the two lonely men form a bond with each other. I quite liked this tender story. And Hamer does add a touch of subtle humor in this movie – he shows how people behave, how the Swedes and Norwegians view each other, etc.