The 5 Best Drama Golden Globe nominated films are:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire
The number of these films opening up for wide Canadian theatrical distribution by mid-December is.....
drum roll.....
0. Zero.
None of them will be in theaters across Canada until Friday, Dec 19, when Slumdog Millionaire will make an appearance. Sorry, opening a film in one theater in Toronto does not count for Canada. I believe Revolutionary Road, the final of the 5, won't open until mid Jan 2009. On the other hand, all the 5 nominated Comedy/Musical films have opened in Canada or are already in cinemas:
Burn After Reading
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
Mamma Mia!
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
This is what happens almost every year. The serious films wait until the final week of December to open in just one theater somewhere in the US, while the rest of North America has to wait to see them until mid-January of the following year. Ofcourse, that is still better than the case for the 5 Foreign nominated films:
Der Baader Meinhof Komplex
Maria Larssons eviga ögonblick
Gomorra
Il y a longtemps que je t'aime
Waltz with Bashir
These might not open in theaters until 4-6 months into the next year or might not even get a theatrical run. Luckily, I have seen Gomorra via the film festival circuit and that was the only way people around the World would have seen the gripping Italian flick. In a way, the film festival circuits still continue to serve as an alternative distribution network, not only for foreign films but even some Hollywood ones.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Dark Knight
A bank robbery. A lone man, with a hunched back, a bag in one hand and a mask in another.
During the robbery, the robbers start killing each other. A robber points the gun towards his fellow robber, the Joker, and wonders if the Joker is instructed to kill him as well.
“No, no, no. I kill the bus driver.” As the Joker looks at his watch.
“Bus Driver. What bus driver?”
Bus smashes through the door, right on time, and the robber falls and gets killed with a piece of wood and some shattered glass. In fact, the robber falls to the ground even before the piece of wood comes at him. But all a quick cut. Chop. Chop.
Very impressive planning though. What if the robber had merely shot the Joker and not bothered to ask a question? All a matter of chance really. Heads, tails, flip a coin.
Planning. Scheming. Mobsters. Enter the Joker with a proposition.
“I’m gonna make this pencil disappear.”
“Ta-da. It’s..It’s gone”. Fast cut. In slow motion, there is no pencil but as the mobster falls to the ground, a dark pencil like object appears stuck to his eye.
So what is the grand plan?
“It’s simple. We, uh, kill the Batman.”
“You wanna know how I got these scars.” No, not really. But I am sure you are going to tell me, over and over.
”Why so serious”? Silence.
Killings. Explosions. Terror. Chaos. No planning but random acts of terror. The Joker is the new terrorist of Gotham. Although, if the acts of terror are actually random then why are there clues as to the next victim or even the next location?
The girl gets captured in the fund raiser.
“Let her go”. says the Batman.
“Very poor choice of words.” Indeed.
Revenge. Fast action. Bat mobile self-destructs. But look slowly. As a man in a parked car attempts to look at his teeth in his side view mirror, the mirror gets taken out by a speeding Batman on his bike. Then there are two kids pretending to fire an imaginary machine gun at some parked cars. The cars then explode and one can detect awe and surprize in the kids eye. These two humor scenes are an ode to Spider Man 3, scenes one would find in any bad Hollywood summer movie but here they are presented in a “dark” movie. Even though the scenes halt the tension and expose the film for what it is really is. But shhhh...listen.
More explosions. Bullets. Blast. The Capture. Mission accomplished. The arrest and then the interrogation with the terrorist, err the Joker.
“No, you..you complete me.”
No. The war is not over. Corruption. And the terrorist’s henchmen carry out their plan. Insurgency?
“You see, I’m a guy of simple taste.” “I enjoy...dynamite..and gun powder...and gasoline. And you know the thing that they have in common? They’re cheap.”
Is gasoline that cheap? Not what the papers were saying a few months ago. Ok, ok cheaper than guns. But shhh...Money burning. A new boss is in town.
“Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous. You’ve turned every cell phone in Gotham into a microphone.”
Spying. Power. Resignation. “null-key encryption.” Audio match. What kind of software would be able to get a direct match with live streaming audio data from millions of cell phones against one audio sample? No idea that the Batman was an expert computer programmer as well.
Ethics, choice -- criminals vs innocent citizens. “Social-experiment”. Turn all good into evil or merely pull off the mask of innocence to expose the savage animal that lurks within everyone? Two-face. Fallen white knight Harvey Dent. And even bigger apparent fall of the Dark Knight. The Batman has to take the blame, all for the greater good. Dent was a Hero. Must preserve people’s faith. You see, the ordinary citizens have no hope so they need to believe. Otherwise, they might not believe in anything. So they must be fed lies, white lies, so that they can continue to believe in their white knight.
Oh the hype. The greatness. There is so much greatness here that even the contrived script events are not noticeable. The cuts are so fast that that one does not notice the few nods to B-grade Hollywood films. Ah so much greatness. The film moves from act of terror to another. Lights, ok, fine no lights. Camera and action, lots of it. Just another Hollywood summer blockbuster, shot better and shrouded in darkness. Heath Ledger steals the show as the Joker, Christian Bale seems to get a deep cold everytime he puts on the Bat Suit, Maggie Gyllenhaal does a great impression of Katie Holmes and Aaron Eckhart takes his No Smoking lobbying role and turns it into a lobbying for justice role before his character seeks solace in evil. A few phrases here and there about ethics and chaos and a story about jewels in Burma. Burn the forest. Smoke him out. And can’t forget those scars?
“You wanna know how I got these scars.” Spare me.
Rating: 7/10
During the robbery, the robbers start killing each other. A robber points the gun towards his fellow robber, the Joker, and wonders if the Joker is instructed to kill him as well.
“No, no, no. I kill the bus driver.” As the Joker looks at his watch.
“Bus Driver. What bus driver?”
Bus smashes through the door, right on time, and the robber falls and gets killed with a piece of wood and some shattered glass. In fact, the robber falls to the ground even before the piece of wood comes at him. But all a quick cut. Chop. Chop.
Very impressive planning though. What if the robber had merely shot the Joker and not bothered to ask a question? All a matter of chance really. Heads, tails, flip a coin.
Planning. Scheming. Mobsters. Enter the Joker with a proposition.
“I’m gonna make this pencil disappear.”
“Ta-da. It’s..It’s gone”. Fast cut. In slow motion, there is no pencil but as the mobster falls to the ground, a dark pencil like object appears stuck to his eye.
So what is the grand plan?
“It’s simple. We, uh, kill the Batman.”
“You wanna know how I got these scars.” No, not really. But I am sure you are going to tell me, over and over.
”Why so serious”? Silence.
Killings. Explosions. Terror. Chaos. No planning but random acts of terror. The Joker is the new terrorist of Gotham. Although, if the acts of terror are actually random then why are there clues as to the next victim or even the next location?
The girl gets captured in the fund raiser.
“Let her go”. says the Batman.
“Very poor choice of words.” Indeed.
Revenge. Fast action. Bat mobile self-destructs. But look slowly. As a man in a parked car attempts to look at his teeth in his side view mirror, the mirror gets taken out by a speeding Batman on his bike. Then there are two kids pretending to fire an imaginary machine gun at some parked cars. The cars then explode and one can detect awe and surprize in the kids eye. These two humor scenes are an ode to Spider Man 3, scenes one would find in any bad Hollywood summer movie but here they are presented in a “dark” movie. Even though the scenes halt the tension and expose the film for what it is really is. But shhhh...listen.
More explosions. Bullets. Blast. The Capture. Mission accomplished. The arrest and then the interrogation with the terrorist, err the Joker.
“No, you..you complete me.”
No. The war is not over. Corruption. And the terrorist’s henchmen carry out their plan. Insurgency?
“You see, I’m a guy of simple taste.” “I enjoy...dynamite..and gun powder...and gasoline. And you know the thing that they have in common? They’re cheap.”
Is gasoline that cheap? Not what the papers were saying a few months ago. Ok, ok cheaper than guns. But shhh...Money burning. A new boss is in town.
“Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous. You’ve turned every cell phone in Gotham into a microphone.”
Spying. Power. Resignation. “null-key encryption.” Audio match. What kind of software would be able to get a direct match with live streaming audio data from millions of cell phones against one audio sample? No idea that the Batman was an expert computer programmer as well.
Ethics, choice -- criminals vs innocent citizens. “Social-experiment”. Turn all good into evil or merely pull off the mask of innocence to expose the savage animal that lurks within everyone? Two-face. Fallen white knight Harvey Dent. And even bigger apparent fall of the Dark Knight. The Batman has to take the blame, all for the greater good. Dent was a Hero. Must preserve people’s faith. You see, the ordinary citizens have no hope so they need to believe. Otherwise, they might not believe in anything. So they must be fed lies, white lies, so that they can continue to believe in their white knight.
Oh the hype. The greatness. There is so much greatness here that even the contrived script events are not noticeable. The cuts are so fast that that one does not notice the few nods to B-grade Hollywood films. Ah so much greatness. The film moves from act of terror to another. Lights, ok, fine no lights. Camera and action, lots of it. Just another Hollywood summer blockbuster, shot better and shrouded in darkness. Heath Ledger steals the show as the Joker, Christian Bale seems to get a deep cold everytime he puts on the Bat Suit, Maggie Gyllenhaal does a great impression of Katie Holmes and Aaron Eckhart takes his No Smoking lobbying role and turns it into a lobbying for justice role before his character seeks solace in evil. A few phrases here and there about ethics and chaos and a story about jewels in Burma. Burn the forest. Smoke him out. And can’t forget those scars?
“You wanna know how I got these scars.” Spare me.
Rating: 7/10
Saturday, December 06, 2008
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
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
Friday, December 05, 2008
JCVD
In theory it appeared to be a great idea -- Jean-Claude Van Damme playing a washed out action hero struggling to make ends meet, reflecting on his career, all the while speaking in his native tongue. That was enough to get me intrigued. I stayed away from reading the story and chose to have the film speak for itself. But unfortunately, it only appears to have been a great idea on paper. When translated to the screen, something does appear to be missing. Although the film does hold a lot of promise and contains enough to make it worthwhile, it truly feels like a missed opportunity for something better, something greater even.
Mabrouk El Mechri’s feature begins in brilliant fashion. Van Damme is shooting a scene for an action film, doing what action heroes do best, but at the end of the take he appears to be tired. That is when he approaches his Asian director and tells him that he can’t do action scenes in one take anymore as he is “47 years old”. But the Asian director wants none of it and continues to throw darts at a Hollywood target poster. The director’s translator conveys the words to Van Damme along with a jibe about John Woo and Hollywood. The John Woo reference is brought up again later on in the film by a few Van Damme fans who believe that if it were not for “the man from Brussels” John Woo would still be “shooting with pigeons” in Hong Kong. The best part of the film is such film jokes which poke fun both at Van Damme and even at the action film industry in general, such as how Steven Seagal beat Van Damme to a part because he agreed to cut off his pony tail. The film is sprinkled with these jokes and balances the serious moments delicately along with the lighter side of things.
Immediately after the opening scenes, we witness how Van Damme is involved in a custody battle for his daughter, an issue that forms the crux of the actor’s pain. After stopping for a brief photo and autograph session with some fans, Van Damme heads to the post office when some gun shots are heard. We see his face through the broken window asking the local cop to get away, but the cop assumes that Van Damme is the one holding hostages at the post office. The media jump on this story and his action fans gather around the post office to support their hero. There are some clues given to who is doing the actual hold up, but the film then does a rewind of sorts and shows the post office scenes from a different point of view, explaining how Van Damme became a hostage himself. While some of these scenes were useful, the film’s momentum is actually halted by explaining things unnecessarily in detail as there is enough for the audience to gather on their own. Still, the hostage situation brings its own mix of humor and reflection; humor when one of the robbers turns out to be a big Van Damme fan and asks his hero to demo some karate kicks while Van Damme reflects on his own life and what he has accomplished. In an interesting sequence, Van Damme is lifted high above the ground and addresses the audience directly, exposing himself via his honest confessions.
JCVD does raise some interesting points about perceptions of actors and even the film industry in general. Van Damme is frustrated to be getting the same cliched parts, playing the action hero in the nth sequel of a meaningless film, and blames some directors for ruining his career. Mabrouk El Mechri’s film does show that Jean-Claude can indeed act and offers much more than brainless action roles he plays over and over, so why is he not getting offered anything else? By playing himself in the film and given some of the dialogues, the film does have a autobiographical feel to it, but there are also some cuts which allude to the film within a film nature of JCVD. Even though the film only has a running time of 96 minutes, it would have been much stronger had another 10 minutes being trimmed. Still, overall it was refreshing to see a director integrate humor, action and tender emotions and allow Jean-Claude Van Damme to open up and use his face and expressions, and leave his muscles on the side.
Rating: 7.5/10
Thursday, December 04, 2008
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 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:
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.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
In addition.....
Amitabh Bachchan's blog contains his thoughts regarding the ongoing standoff in Mumbai. It is understanding to see the roles played by Mumbai blogs, including those by actors such as Aamir and Amitabh, in getting information out and even thoughts/feelings. Unfortunately, the biggest questions remain unanswered: who are the young men with guns? And which fat men brainwashed them to head fearlessly into Mumbai?
They came by sea and then they went about their sick plan. While the real leaders of this situation sit somewhere safe, eating and getting fat. Are they getting fat on mutton kebabs or are they getting fat on curries? Are they having naans with their meat? And what kind is the naan? These questions may seem strange but the answers would indicate where the masterminds are sitting at.
They came by sea and then they went about their sick plan. While the real leaders of this situation sit somewhere safe, eating and getting fat. Are they getting fat on mutton kebabs or are they getting fat on curries? Are they having naans with their meat? And what kind is the naan? These questions may seem strange but the answers would indicate where the masterminds are sitting at.
Oh Mumbai
Not again. Not again Mumbai....
If a city could be given a voice, then given what has happened over the last two decades, Mumbai's angry scream would resonate around the world and render everyone deaf. I can't imagine any other city in the world that has had to endure such sustained nonsense, over and over..and in the name of what? No one knows.
In 1993 it was the Stock Market, in 2006 it was the trains and in between them, the local markets, cinemas, etc were all hit. As always innocents were killed. Now high end hotels, a cafe and another cinema, plus the train station again. On and on...
If the pictures are true, then it was young kids who went on a killing rampage and are still at large. Why? There is no why. Just like in David Fincher's Fight Club, when the young men go out of control and start causing damage without any cause or even a leader guiding them. Out of boredom, out of misguided cause.
Interestingly, there were 3 Bollywood films (Mumbai Meri Jaan, A Wednesday, Mukhbiir) released this year that tried to deal with the horror of the 2006 attack and another with terrorism (Aamir) in general. In all these 4 films, there was a happy ending, ofcourse. Bollywood films usually end on a happy note. They have to because in reality a city like Mumbai isn't left to stay happy for too long. Someone usually comes along and tries to dampen the city's spirit. The city as always is left to clean up and move on.
Aamir Khan has a blog entry regarding this madness.
Mumbai Met blogs with their coverage
Reuters on the use of blogs for news coverage.
If a city could be given a voice, then given what has happened over the last two decades, Mumbai's angry scream would resonate around the world and render everyone deaf. I can't imagine any other city in the world that has had to endure such sustained nonsense, over and over..and in the name of what? No one knows.
In 1993 it was the Stock Market, in 2006 it was the trains and in between them, the local markets, cinemas, etc were all hit. As always innocents were killed. Now high end hotels, a cafe and another cinema, plus the train station again. On and on...
If the pictures are true, then it was young kids who went on a killing rampage and are still at large. Why? There is no why. Just like in David Fincher's Fight Club, when the young men go out of control and start causing damage without any cause or even a leader guiding them. Out of boredom, out of misguided cause.
Interestingly, there were 3 Bollywood films (Mumbai Meri Jaan, A Wednesday, Mukhbiir) released this year that tried to deal with the horror of the 2006 attack and another with terrorism (Aamir) in general. In all these 4 films, there was a happy ending, ofcourse. Bollywood films usually end on a happy note. They have to because in reality a city like Mumbai isn't left to stay happy for too long. Someone usually comes along and tries to dampen the city's spirit. The city as always is left to clean up and move on.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Vintage Canadian Cinema
The Calgary Cinematheque hosted an outstanding film series this past weekend -- Pushing Boundaries: Independent Canadian Cinema of the Sixties & Seventies. The four films shown were:
A Married Couple (1969, Director Allan King)
High (1967, Director Larry Kent)
Montreal Main (1972, Director Frank Vitale)
Rubber Gun (1977, Director Allan Moyle)
The series was hosted and moderated by film critic Geoff Pevere, in the presence of all the four directors. There was a brief introduction both by Geoff and the film director in question before each screening and a very informative Q & A session afterwards. I would have loved to attend all four films but thankfully I managed to catch two of the groundbreaking masterpieces.
A Marriage in collapse
A Married Couple is an excellent case study of the difficulties a relationship poses for couples sharing the same living space. By observing the lives of a married couple, we can see the struggles and compromises that take place when two people share the same space and how things can start to go wrong. Even though the material is isolated to just one couple in late 1960's Toronto, the genius of Allan King has ensured that the topics displayed on screen can apply to virtually any marriage over the last few decades.
In making the film, Allan sought out couples whose marriage was in trouble but as he mentioned in the Q & A session afterwards, most of the couples he found were "boring". It so happened that the couple Allan was staying with (Billy Edwards and his wife Antoinette) agreed to allow themselves to be filmed so as to save their marriage. Allan was never in the room because he felt his presence would have influenced the couple, so he left his cameraman Richard Leiterman and soundman Christian Wangler with the couple and their 3 year old son, Bogart, for about ten weeks of filming. In the end, they collected more than 70 hours of footage and Allan worked with the editor after each day's shoot. The end result is a brilliant piece of verite film-making. No acting or fake emotions but raw feelings of anger, hurt and disappointment. Allan called this film an "actuality" as opposed to reality film-making.
It is such a complex matter when two people decide to share their lives under one roof as demonstrated by how small arguments can spiral into a full blown war. Of course, most small arguments are never about one issue. Each argument is an accumulation of past incidents and events. An example in the film illustrates this problem when Antoinette mentions to Billy that she is fed up with him leaving his shoes lying around the house. The argument that results shows that the real problem is not about the shoes but about each person not taking share of their daily responsibilities.
Allan King felt that the movie was a two way projector where even the audience projected their feelings onto the screen. In an initial Toronto screening, some audience members identified with Billy while others sided with Antoinette. Allan mentioned a particular example from the film that caused a differing perception in the audience. In one argument, Billy pushes Antoinette out of the house and slams the door. Allan mentioned that some people were sure they saw Billy hit Antoinette but that was not the case. In reality, he was afraid of her and when he pushed her out, he had a worried look on his face as quickly tried to slam the door lest she retaliate back. It was clear from the footage in the film, before and after the scene, that Antoinette was the stronger of the two and it was Billy who was more afraid of her.
Overall, a true gem of a film! Incredible!!!!
Rating: 10/10
Verite again, but on the streets of Montreal
Frank Vitale's Montreal Main is a living breathing work of art. As Frank mentioned, he didn't have a script with dialogues but just had a framework of the story with some scenes outlined; he knew how he wanted the scenes framed and shot, something that interested him more than coming up with the dialogues. Frank's friends and the other actors improvised the dialogues for a film that was shot on and off, sometimes shooting only a scene per day, for about 15 days. In order to get funding for the film, Frank shot most of the movie on video as a demo. Only after the movie got some money ($25,000 CAD) was the beautiful original score added and a 16 mm camera used to re-shoot the film.
In terms of a story, the film follows Frank (played by Frank Vitale), Bozo (Allan Moyle) and their friends around on their daily exploits in Montreal. The key cinematic thread involves Frank's attraction to a teenage boy (Johnny), whom he befriends and hangs out with. The friendship causes problems not only among Frank's circle of friends but also with Johnny's parents. While nothing sexual is depicted regarding their friendship, the film tests the boundaries of society's acceptance of relationships.
The film takes place in a vibrant energetic English speaking art community in Montreal. Frank and Allan Moyle were part of the community and Allan even made a sequel (Rubber Gun which followed Montreal Main's screening) using the same characters. As the community consisted of various artists (painters, writers), it is natural that Montreal Main has an artistic feel to it and flows along beautifully. There are some amazing camera shots in the film with a very open yet poetic ending shot which features faces of customers at a hot dog/arcade shop.
The Q & A session was particularly enriching as both Frank and Allan expressed differing reactions on seeing the film again and looking back at its creation. Allan felt the movie's topic gave him the creeps while Frank talked about the emotional aspects of the film, citing how now as a father he has trouble seeing the character Frank abandon Johnny in the film near the end. The open ending can either be seen as hopeful in that Johnny is ok or can be taken to mean that Johnny is lost forever.
Rating: 9/10
Comments
Canadian Cinema hardly has a cinematic presence in this country. It is hard to believe that are many countries like Canada where local films struggle to get distribution and theatrical releases. So it was particularly refreshing to see that despite the near invisible presence, Canadian cinema in the past produced such amazing films. Frank Vitale mentioned that he has been surprised to see that Montreal Main has been getting a revival in the past 2-3 years with even a DVD release out in the market. I really hope that more Canadian gems can be found and atleast released on DVD. Great cinema is always welcome!
A Married Couple (1969, Director Allan King)
High (1967, Director Larry Kent)
Montreal Main (1972, Director Frank Vitale)
Rubber Gun (1977, Director Allan Moyle)
The series was hosted and moderated by film critic Geoff Pevere, in the presence of all the four directors. There was a brief introduction both by Geoff and the film director in question before each screening and a very informative Q & A session afterwards. I would have loved to attend all four films but thankfully I managed to catch two of the groundbreaking masterpieces.
A Marriage in collapse
A Married Couple is an excellent case study of the difficulties a relationship poses for couples sharing the same living space. By observing the lives of a married couple, we can see the struggles and compromises that take place when two people share the same space and how things can start to go wrong. Even though the material is isolated to just one couple in late 1960's Toronto, the genius of Allan King has ensured that the topics displayed on screen can apply to virtually any marriage over the last few decades.
In making the film, Allan sought out couples whose marriage was in trouble but as he mentioned in the Q & A session afterwards, most of the couples he found were "boring". It so happened that the couple Allan was staying with (Billy Edwards and his wife Antoinette) agreed to allow themselves to be filmed so as to save their marriage. Allan was never in the room because he felt his presence would have influenced the couple, so he left his cameraman Richard Leiterman and soundman Christian Wangler with the couple and their 3 year old son, Bogart, for about ten weeks of filming. In the end, they collected more than 70 hours of footage and Allan worked with the editor after each day's shoot. The end result is a brilliant piece of verite film-making. No acting or fake emotions but raw feelings of anger, hurt and disappointment. Allan called this film an "actuality" as opposed to reality film-making.
It is such a complex matter when two people decide to share their lives under one roof as demonstrated by how small arguments can spiral into a full blown war. Of course, most small arguments are never about one issue. Each argument is an accumulation of past incidents and events. An example in the film illustrates this problem when Antoinette mentions to Billy that she is fed up with him leaving his shoes lying around the house. The argument that results shows that the real problem is not about the shoes but about each person not taking share of their daily responsibilities.
Allan King felt that the movie was a two way projector where even the audience projected their feelings onto the screen. In an initial Toronto screening, some audience members identified with Billy while others sided with Antoinette. Allan mentioned a particular example from the film that caused a differing perception in the audience. In one argument, Billy pushes Antoinette out of the house and slams the door. Allan mentioned that some people were sure they saw Billy hit Antoinette but that was not the case. In reality, he was afraid of her and when he pushed her out, he had a worried look on his face as quickly tried to slam the door lest she retaliate back. It was clear from the footage in the film, before and after the scene, that Antoinette was the stronger of the two and it was Billy who was more afraid of her.
Overall, a true gem of a film! Incredible!!!!
Rating: 10/10
Verite again, but on the streets of Montreal
Frank Vitale's Montreal Main is a living breathing work of art. As Frank mentioned, he didn't have a script with dialogues but just had a framework of the story with some scenes outlined; he knew how he wanted the scenes framed and shot, something that interested him more than coming up with the dialogues. Frank's friends and the other actors improvised the dialogues for a film that was shot on and off, sometimes shooting only a scene per day, for about 15 days. In order to get funding for the film, Frank shot most of the movie on video as a demo. Only after the movie got some money ($25,000 CAD) was the beautiful original score added and a 16 mm camera used to re-shoot the film.
In terms of a story, the film follows Frank (played by Frank Vitale), Bozo (Allan Moyle) and their friends around on their daily exploits in Montreal. The key cinematic thread involves Frank's attraction to a teenage boy (Johnny), whom he befriends and hangs out with. The friendship causes problems not only among Frank's circle of friends but also with Johnny's parents. While nothing sexual is depicted regarding their friendship, the film tests the boundaries of society's acceptance of relationships.
The film takes place in a vibrant energetic English speaking art community in Montreal. Frank and Allan Moyle were part of the community and Allan even made a sequel (Rubber Gun which followed Montreal Main's screening) using the same characters. As the community consisted of various artists (painters, writers), it is natural that Montreal Main has an artistic feel to it and flows along beautifully. There are some amazing camera shots in the film with a very open yet poetic ending shot which features faces of customers at a hot dog/arcade shop.
The Q & A session was particularly enriching as both Frank and Allan expressed differing reactions on seeing the film again and looking back at its creation. Allan felt the movie's topic gave him the creeps while Frank talked about the emotional aspects of the film, citing how now as a father he has trouble seeing the character Frank abandon Johnny in the film near the end. The open ending can either be seen as hopeful in that Johnny is ok or can be taken to mean that Johnny is lost forever.
Rating: 9/10
Comments
Canadian Cinema hardly has a cinematic presence in this country. It is hard to believe that are many countries like Canada where local films struggle to get distribution and theatrical releases. So it was particularly refreshing to see that despite the near invisible presence, Canadian cinema in the past produced such amazing films. Frank Vitale mentioned that he has been surprised to see that Montreal Main has been getting a revival in the past 2-3 years with even a DVD release out in the market. I really hope that more Canadian gems can be found and atleast released on DVD. Great cinema is always welcome!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
A taste of global film festivals
Kenneth Turan’s Sundance to Sarajevo is an insightful look at the diverse and rich world of international film festivals. While Turan covers popular festivals such as Cannes and Sundance, the real joy lies in the chapters dedicated to the FESPACO (Burkina Faso), Midnight Sun (Finland) and Pordenone (Italy) film festivals. Of the trio, I had never heard of the Midnight Sun and Pordenone festivals but the chapters covering them left the most impression.
Midnight Sun film festival
The Kaurismäki brothers were co-founders of this unique festival in Sodankylä where films are shown throughout the night because the sun doesn’t set for the duration of the festival. The first time I learnt of a place in Finland where the sun never sets was in Julio Medem’s wonderful film The Lovers of the Artic Circle. As Kenneth Turan points out, Julio got the idea for the segment in the film after he visited the Midnight Sun Festival. Overall, the concept of watching films right through the night is enticing but ofcourse how can one consider it night when the sun is still shining brightly at 4 am when some screenings end?
Pordenone Silent Film Festival
This is quite a remarkable film festival which not only brings together silent film buffs but also film collectors. Turan writes about how a majority of the silent films were almost destroyed when sound films started arriving but thankfully some individuals saved a majority of these films and kept them for their personal collections. Every year some of these personal collections are being released to the general public with Pordenone being the common meeting ground to discover precious gems and keep the heritage of silent films alive. Also, there is a section in the festival where unknown films are shown in the hope that someone can recognize them. One year in this section Sergio Leone was pleasantly surprized to discover a lost film starring his father Andrea.
This Pordenone chapter really gave me a new appreciation for silents films especially the following paragraphs which talks about the complex issues in running these films:
For though there is a uniform sound projection speed of 24 frames per second, nothing of the kind exists for silent films, largely because they were shot by cinematographers who hand-cranked their cameras. They speeded up or slowed down the movement from film to film and even within frames from 16 frames per second to 20-something per second as the action dictated.
Making things even more complicated is that footage was often supposed to be projected faster than it was hot, ensuring that stunts looked crisper and slapstick funnier. Speeds also varied with decades, and projecting D.W Griffith’s ambitious 1916 epic Intolerance at the late silent speed of 24 frames per second instead of the intended 16 to 18 makes it play like comedy, while showing 1929’s gently romantic Sunrise at 16 frames per second instead of the intended 24 has the unfortunate tendency, says Kevin Brownlow, "to put audiences to sleep."
Though modern silent projectionists don’t generally change the tempo within films, they must have a knowledge of what the standard frames-per-second count was in each of the films they show plus the ability to work with today’s breed of variable speed projectors. The aim remains what it was in 1911, when a practitioner wrote that the ideal projectionist is someone who "'renders' a film, if he is a real operator, exactly as does the musician render a piece of music, in that, within limits the action of a scene being portrayed depends entirely on his judgement."
Turan spends the second last chapter in the book talking about a failed French film festival which gives a look at the complexities of running a festival and also sheds some lights on the efforts of the French government to promote their cinema. And in the final chapter, Turan talks about his experiences serving on the jury of the Montreal film festival. This was a very delightful behind the scenes look at how film festival awards are given out, a process that hardly ever gets any press.
It is good to know that there are great films being shown in most parts of the world, albeit via film festivals. Ideally, good cinema should be shown week in week out, but until big studios stronghold over the world’s theaters is not loosened, film festivals are still the best way for a majority of the planet’s population to view true cinema.
Note: About half of the book's chapters are available online via Google Books. Unfortunately, the sections on the Midnight Sun Festival and Pordenone are not online.
The Kaurismäki brothers were co-founders of this unique festival in Sodankylä where films are shown throughout the night because the sun doesn’t set for the duration of the festival. The first time I learnt of a place in Finland where the sun never sets was in Julio Medem’s wonderful film The Lovers of the Artic Circle. As Kenneth Turan points out, Julio got the idea for the segment in the film after he visited the Midnight Sun Festival. Overall, the concept of watching films right through the night is enticing but ofcourse how can one consider it night when the sun is still shining brightly at 4 am when some screenings end?
This is quite a remarkable film festival which not only brings together silent film buffs but also film collectors. Turan writes about how a majority of the silent films were almost destroyed when sound films started arriving but thankfully some individuals saved a majority of these films and kept them for their personal collections. Every year some of these personal collections are being released to the general public with Pordenone being the common meeting ground to discover precious gems and keep the heritage of silent films alive. Also, there is a section in the festival where unknown films are shown in the hope that someone can recognize them. One year in this section Sergio Leone was pleasantly surprized to discover a lost film starring his father Andrea.
This Pordenone chapter really gave me a new appreciation for silents films especially the following paragraphs which talks about the complex issues in running these films:
For though there is a uniform sound projection speed of 24 frames per second, nothing of the kind exists for silent films, largely because they were shot by cinematographers who hand-cranked their cameras. They speeded up or slowed down the movement from film to film and even within frames from 16 frames per second to 20-something per second as the action dictated.
Making things even more complicated is that footage was often supposed to be projected faster than it was hot, ensuring that stunts looked crisper and slapstick funnier. Speeds also varied with decades, and projecting D.W Griffith’s ambitious 1916 epic Intolerance at the late silent speed of 24 frames per second instead of the intended 16 to 18 makes it play like comedy, while showing 1929’s gently romantic Sunrise at 16 frames per second instead of the intended 24 has the unfortunate tendency, says Kevin Brownlow, "to put audiences to sleep."
Though modern silent projectionists don’t generally change the tempo within films, they must have a knowledge of what the standard frames-per-second count was in each of the films they show plus the ability to work with today’s breed of variable speed projectors. The aim remains what it was in 1911, when a practitioner wrote that the ideal projectionist is someone who "'renders' a film, if he is a real operator, exactly as does the musician render a piece of music, in that, within limits the action of a scene being portrayed depends entirely on his judgement."
Turan spends the second last chapter in the book talking about a failed French film festival which gives a look at the complexities of running a festival and also sheds some lights on the efforts of the French government to promote their cinema. And in the final chapter, Turan talks about his experiences serving on the jury of the Montreal film festival. This was a very delightful behind the scenes look at how film festival awards are given out, a process that hardly ever gets any press.
It is good to know that there are great films being shown in most parts of the world, albeit via film festivals. Ideally, good cinema should be shown week in week out, but until big studios stronghold over the world’s theaters is not loosened, film festivals are still the best way for a majority of the planet’s population to view true cinema.
Note: About half of the book's chapters are available online via Google Books. Unfortunately, the sections on the Midnight Sun Festival and Pordenone are not online.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The more things change...
the more they go back to being the same. Well atleast in the Italian Serie A!
On Thursday night Juventus beat Genoa 4-1 to go joint top with Inter Milan at the top of the league standings for a period of atleast 72 hours until Inter and the rest of the Serie A teams take to the field on Saturday and Sunday. Having played one game less, Inter have the same points as Juve (24) and are just ahead of the Turin club by a goal difference of 1 (+10 as opposed to Juve's +9). Milan and Napoli are one point behind the two on 23, with Lazio at 22, Udinese at 21 while both Genoa and Fiorentina have 20 points.
For the last two decades AC Milan, Juventus and Inter Milan have been the top three teams in Italy not only in terms of titles won but also with the most financial muscle to attract the biggest names in the game. Other teams such as Napoli, Sampdoria, Roma, Lazio and even Fiorentina have attempted to challenge the trio with limited sustained success over the years. One could say that out of the top three, Inter have only recently earned the top accolades after the corruption scandal in 2006 saw Juventus getting relegated from Serie A and Milan having points docked for the start of the 2006/07 season. But things are appearing to be restored to the Italian standards of normality as Juventus and Milan are putting on a comeback of sorts. Although it remains to be seen if either Juventus and Milan can sustain their good form in the long run as their squads are aging and packed with many players past their peak.
On Thursday night Juventus beat Genoa 4-1 to go joint top with Inter Milan at the top of the league standings for a period of atleast 72 hours until Inter and the rest of the Serie A teams take to the field on Saturday and Sunday. Having played one game less, Inter have the same points as Juve (24) and are just ahead of the Turin club by a goal difference of 1 (+10 as opposed to Juve's +9). Milan and Napoli are one point behind the two on 23, with Lazio at 22, Udinese at 21 while both Genoa and Fiorentina have 20 points.
For the last two decades AC Milan, Juventus and Inter Milan have been the top three teams in Italy not only in terms of titles won but also with the most financial muscle to attract the biggest names in the game. Other teams such as Napoli, Sampdoria, Roma, Lazio and even Fiorentina have attempted to challenge the trio with limited sustained success over the years. One could say that out of the top three, Inter have only recently earned the top accolades after the corruption scandal in 2006 saw Juventus getting relegated from Serie A and Milan having points docked for the start of the 2006/07 season. But things are appearing to be restored to the Italian standards of normality as Juventus and Milan are putting on a comeback of sorts. Although it remains to be seen if either Juventus and Milan can sustain their good form in the long run as their squads are aging and packed with many players past their peak.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
A thing of beauty....
is a joy forever!
It is hard to believe a team with an average of 19 could manage to score such goals but just like they did in the previous round, Arsenal's young team continue to play football the way it is meant to be played. Arsenal's midfield consisted of Jack Wilshere (16 years old), Aaron Ramsey (17 years), Fran Merida (18 years) and Mark Randall (19 years) and up forward, Carlos Vela is only 19 and Jay Simpson is 20. Quite remarkable! And Vela's chip, resulting in the third goal, is quite exquisite.
It is hard to believe a team with an average of 19 could manage to score such goals but just like they did in the previous round, Arsenal's young team continue to play football the way it is meant to be played. Arsenal's midfield consisted of Jack Wilshere (16 years old), Aaron Ramsey (17 years), Fran Merida (18 years) and Mark Randall (19 years) and up forward, Carlos Vela is only 19 and Jay Simpson is 20. Quite remarkable! And Vela's chip, resulting in the third goal, is quite exquisite.
Film Comment, Panel Discussion..
A fascinating must read panel debate:
FILM CRITICISM IN CRISIS?: A New York Film Festival panel discussion hosted by Film Comment September 27, 2008, at the Walter Reade Theater
Here are some snippets.
Seung-hoon Jeung talks about the problems facing Korean cinema but the following words ring true of North American or even Indian cinema:
...But the problem now is not in terms of established critics versus bloggers but criticism itself versus the mass audience who don’t actually need criticism to pick out a film to see on the weekend. The mass audience thinks criticism should be just a brief guide for making choices rather than a means for getting serious ideas or information. They don’t want to suffer from a headache reading serious film criticism. In other words they’re looking for entertainment, not to be enlightened. They choose films based on word of mouth. They don’t really access criticism in print culture, they just read brief comments on the websites. So the Internet seems to have contributed to this shift in film culture. There was a kind of cinephilic enthusiasm from 1995 to early 2000, but after that the Korean film industry began to fluctuate and many Korean filmmakers began to find it hard to finance their projects.....
Emmanuel Burdeau: I’m thinking about that because Serge Daney wrote an incredible piece which was called in French "Pour une ciné-démographie" ("For a Ciné-Demographic") which says that you can tell the story of cinema by comparing the people on the screen and the people in the theaters. And he said, in the beginning, lots of people went to see lots of movies in which there were lots of people. And then, he says, when you arrive at the end of the modern age, you have the viewer who is alone in the theater watching a lonely guy walking alone, and to him that’s the end.
Jonathan Rosenbaum: There’s such a tendency to compartmentalize. I think it’s important, when you’re writing about a film, to think about how it connects to the rest of your life, to other arts, things that are happening to you. I think that film criticism tends to be way too much cut off, when it seems to me if it’s an important art form, it’s important because it addresses the way we live.
Audience member #4: I’m a film student over at NYU, I’m a cinema-studies major. I was just wondering, given the crisis, what are you guys’ hopes, concerns, and advice for
Jonathan Rosenbaum: See lots of movies.
Gavin Smith: Yeah. I was recently talking with someone about the fact that I was just realizing how little film criticism I’ve read, and I’m the editor of a film magazine. Shouldn’t I know everything about film criticism, shouldn’t I have read all the great film critics? I really haven’t. And when I tried to get to the bottom of why that was, I realized it was because I was more interested in going to see movies than I was reading about them. The time in my life where I read the most read about film was when I was a teenager and I didn’t have access to the movies themselves. A substitute was to read film criticism. Once I was out of that cage and could go to the movies, I would spend my time watching movies rather than reading other film critics. There’s no substitute for watching as many films as you can, and watching some of them over and over again....
FILM CRITICISM IN CRISIS?: A New York Film Festival panel discussion hosted by Film Comment September 27, 2008, at the Walter Reade Theater
Here are some snippets.
Seung-hoon Jeung talks about the problems facing Korean cinema but the following words ring true of North American or even Indian cinema:
...But the problem now is not in terms of established critics versus bloggers but criticism itself versus the mass audience who don’t actually need criticism to pick out a film to see on the weekend. The mass audience thinks criticism should be just a brief guide for making choices rather than a means for getting serious ideas or information. They don’t want to suffer from a headache reading serious film criticism. In other words they’re looking for entertainment, not to be enlightened. They choose films based on word of mouth. They don’t really access criticism in print culture, they just read brief comments on the websites. So the Internet seems to have contributed to this shift in film culture. There was a kind of cinephilic enthusiasm from 1995 to early 2000, but after that the Korean film industry began to fluctuate and many Korean filmmakers began to find it hard to finance their projects.....
Emmanuel Burdeau: I’m thinking about that because Serge Daney wrote an incredible piece which was called in French "Pour une ciné-démographie" ("For a Ciné-Demographic") which says that you can tell the story of cinema by comparing the people on the screen and the people in the theaters. And he said, in the beginning, lots of people went to see lots of movies in which there were lots of people. And then, he says, when you arrive at the end of the modern age, you have the viewer who is alone in the theater watching a lonely guy walking alone, and to him that’s the end.
Jonathan Rosenbaum: There’s such a tendency to compartmentalize. I think it’s important, when you’re writing about a film, to think about how it connects to the rest of your life, to other arts, things that are happening to you. I think that film criticism tends to be way too much cut off, when it seems to me if it’s an important art form, it’s important because it addresses the way we live.
Audience member #4: I’m a film student over at NYU, I’m a cinema-studies major. I was just wondering, given the crisis, what are you guys’ hopes, concerns, and advice for
Jonathan Rosenbaum: See lots of movies.
Gavin Smith: Yeah. I was recently talking with someone about the fact that I was just realizing how little film criticism I’ve read, and I’m the editor of a film magazine. Shouldn’t I know everything about film criticism, shouldn’t I have read all the great film critics? I really haven’t. And when I tried to get to the bottom of why that was, I realized it was because I was more interested in going to see movies than I was reading about them. The time in my life where I read the most read about film was when I was a teenager and I didn’t have access to the movies themselves. A substitute was to read film criticism. Once I was out of that cage and could go to the movies, I would spend my time watching movies rather than reading other film critics. There’s no substitute for watching as many films as you can, and watching some of them over and over again....
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Nasri, Samir Nasri
pic: GettyImages, Soccernet
Very rarely do I get something right while predicting for this Arsenal side, but the man from Marseille ensured that I got something correct for a change. In my preview for today's game, I mentioned: The tactic has the danger of leaving Bendtner completely isolated and not giving Manchester’s defense any worries. In that case, Nasri might be the only real game breaker as Cesc would be too bogged down by doing everything on his own.
Well Nasri provided to be the game winner as he scored both goals, the second one a beautifully struck shot, to down Man Utd 2-1. The game once again provided that Man Utd are a team that consistently get help from refs no matter which stadium they play at. Today, neither Rooney or Ronaldo were booked for obvious fouls, a penalty for Arsenal was turned away and the ref allowed 6 extra minutes of injury time to be played as opposed to a maximum of either 4 or 5 minutes extra stoppage time for an injury to Almunia. It is remarkable that Man Utd lost considering this was the weakest Arsenal team to have taken to the field in more than a decade against them. Unlike Arsenal, Man Utd were at all full strength with no injury problems and they were even able to rest quite a few players midweek in their Champions league fixture, including Rooney who has scored 6 career goals against Arsenal, including 4 as a Man Utd player and two when at Everton. In fact, Rooney scored his first professional goal against Arsenal back in 2002 ending Arsenal's long unbeaten run.
Overall delighted at the result, especially since I had to wake up at 5:30 am to watch this game.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Film education is now in session...
"there are no illiterates in the world of cinema"
-- quote by an un-named director in Kenneth Turan's book Sundance to Sarajevo
Ah so true! In an instinctive way, people have the ability to decipher what is going on in a film even if they don't speak the language; audiences can atleast make out the nature of the conversation from the expressions and body language of the characters despite not understanding the words. This is unlike a book where if one does not know the language, no amount of staring at the page will help. Words and languages written on a page require a good deal of literacy if one is to understand the meaning.
Ofcourse, people's level of literacy varies when it comes to cinema. One can say that in the classroom of international cinema, we are all students. Some might be at an undergraduate level, some chasing a post doctorate while others might be enrolled in a masters program. And even if a person can claim expertise in one genre or nation, there are plenty of other cinematic cultures to study.
In a way, Acquarello's and Michael Guillen's blog names point towards such a cinematic education.
Strictly Film School by Acquarello The Evening Class by Michael Guillen
I can't speak for Michael but most of my education in film has come from evening and some late night classes. Very rarely have I found the time to attend day time classes, but as soon as the sun goes down, well my makeshift film school comes to life.
PS: Even though Girish's blog does not have a 'school' in its title, in reality it is a film education and continuing cinematic learning center in disguise :)
-- quote by an un-named director in Kenneth Turan's book Sundance to Sarajevo
Ah so true! In an instinctive way, people have the ability to decipher what is going on in a film even if they don't speak the language; audiences can atleast make out the nature of the conversation from the expressions and body language of the characters despite not understanding the words. This is unlike a book where if one does not know the language, no amount of staring at the page will help. Words and languages written on a page require a good deal of literacy if one is to understand the meaning.
Ofcourse, people's level of literacy varies when it comes to cinema. One can say that in the classroom of international cinema, we are all students. Some might be at an undergraduate level, some chasing a post doctorate while others might be enrolled in a masters program. And even if a person can claim expertise in one genre or nation, there are plenty of other cinematic cultures to study.
In a way, Acquarello's and Michael Guillen's blog names point towards such a cinematic education.
I can't speak for Michael but most of my education in film has come from evening and some late night classes. Very rarely have I found the time to attend day time classes, but as soon as the sun goes down, well my makeshift film school comes to life.
PS: Even though Girish's blog does not have a 'school' in its title, in reality it is a film education and continuing cinematic learning center in disguise :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)