David Mamet - Notes to Writers of His TV Unit ('05)

I love Mamet. Not only I have enjoyed the films he has written and directed but also his insightful books on drama / films. The books are typically very thin. His language is very witty and at the same time can be complex - many bouncers for me. However he gets the point across in a very clear manner.

For those who don't know much about him - David Mamet is not only a baap in the world of cinema but also theater; he was foremost a playwright who is now a legendary screenwriter. Personally, I love his films that he has directed, what ever I have watched - if you want to see a heist film, about con and double cons and more - check out Heist.

He wrote 'The Verdict' directed by Sydney Lumet, a great film starring Paul Newman. He also wrote the famous play and film - Glengarry Glen Ross (GGR) - salesmen fighting for their jobs, mostly shot in one room with an ensemble cast (Pacino, Lemmon, Ed Harris, Spacey, Baldwin); it won him the Pultizer for Best Play. He is also branded as a 'no-nonsense' guy - well just check out his 'notes' below and get the idea.

If someone wants to write, direct or understand films, the following, simple dope should show you the way. He talks to his television writers, but...it's all about drama. Just being on the track the way he mentions will help make a good story. Pity...it rarely happens in our Bollywood. If Indian folks were to take, just the following notes, as their guiding principles the films would be so much alive and gripping.

One of his fundamentals which I like a lot - first write a film without dialogues - write a silent film and it should work on the principles of drama. Basically you don't need the crutch of dialogues, which is perhaps the biggest bane in our Indian cinema, to tell a film. As they say, it's all about - Show Don't Tell.

By the way, Mamet is a terrific dialogue writer. Check out any flick including GGR, which is so verbose yet...there are dynamites exploding.

Enjoy his spiel. He sure can be brutal. Anyway...figure it out for yourself:

----------------->

TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON'T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE "LITTLE" EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT "INFORMATION?"

AND I RESPOND "*FIGURE IT OUT*" ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY "MAKE IT CLEARER", AND "I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM".

WHEN YOU'VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, "BUT, JIM, IF WE DON'T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME"

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.

*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. IT MUST START BECAUSE THE HERO HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING "BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…" IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER "AS YOU KNOW", THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF "IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS "NO" WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)

—

- a letter David Mamet sent his writers on the TV series The Unit.

The cap locks are Mamet's. Yes, everything he writes (including his letters and emails) must be read VERY LOUDLY and QUICKLY.

Sourced from a blog.

More about Mamet on Wikipedia.

Case Study: Breaking Upwards

THERE are low-budget films, there are micro-budget films, and then there is "Breaking Upwards." It may be hard to imagine how someone could make a feature-length romantic comedy in New York City for just under $15,000, but Daryl Wein and Zoe Lister-Jones managed to do it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/movies/28breaking.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


The way to go when you have no one (big) to back you up. The onus is to get a very good team, or a team that is willing to slog to deliver a good story. For nothing. Except for the satisfaction that one can tell a good story. Of course that in itself is an extremely challenging thing to do.

Viewed: ROCKET SINGH: Salesman of the Year

Well intentioned but not well delivered is the fate of Rocket Singh. It shows an earnest man trying to do things honestly and it does provide some good moments, is also touching at times, however the momentum fails to build to deliver a good story.

Structure
The first act has Harpreet, an honest bloke getting a job into the messy world of sales.

The second act has him running into problems that are alien to him - a world of lies and deceit. His honesty gets him into trouble with his bosses since he almost loses a big customer of his company as he refuses to bribe. Demoted and made fun of, he starts another company working within his, gets collaborators and partners, but eventually this activity is caught by his antagonist.

The third act has the antagonist coming back to him, acknowledging that he lost and Harpreet won and gives back his company that he had taken from his ex-employee.

The start is kind of too cliched - graduating and discussing about what to do. Typically, it would be done much before but then...showing such a naivety has been in vogue for decades. Nevertheless with his friends circle set-up, his family shown (his grandpa, a nice and upright bloke who doesn't understand 'professionalism') it does move him into a corporate world of sales but...the depiction gets too cute. However this is still not so much of an issue but emphasizing the conflict. Yes, you know he is entered an alien world, yes he shall default and when he's shown as happy and satisfied it's taking too much time to get the action moving.

The so-called rising complications doesn't happen effectively - there are conflicts that arise and Harpreet finds his way but...it never builds the tension. A flaw could be not bringing-in opposition more forcefully, not building antagonist effectively.

Yes, the protagonist has an objective but what's the opposition? Fear of being caught. And it's plugged-in quite softly. Since the intention is to keep him as good-natured and have him enabling goodness in everyone, it can get tricky if conflicts are not built cohesively.

The ending is again - good-natured - evil guy becoming a nice bloke - all too quickly and when you are bordering on building caricatures the effect does not flow well.


Characters
The key aspect in this case is character depiction and with Harpreet being quite on a passive side, the momentum doesn't build up too soon. Plus every one else on the outer-circle (like folks in the office and clients) are too uni-dimensional.

The story hinges on the other inner characters - folks who become his partners and critically on the antagonist. But...it's an opportunity lost since they are propped-up only to come-in and go-out as per convenience.

The big problem is dialog takes over action too much; it would have been perhaps good to hang around more with some characters. Eventually there tend to be too many characters floating around him.

Harpreet is supposed to a quiet types but a resilient dude, but that does not mean he can't be active. He owns most of the frames and rightfully so, but...when things resolve too quickly it doesn't work great, he is never pushed too much into a corner despite us being told that they could lose jobs; one doesn't sense that tension, as such the characters come out as not so energetic. Though...being with him and his team one does relate to the sense of camaraderie.


Dialog
Well...I find them too much and when action per se is less it harms the flick. Also...with cuteness as a goal, it tends to fall flat.


Theme / Story
This is an interesting one - the intentions are good. But...how is it being manifested? By a good guy sticking to his guns and an antagonist who makes fun of him and who later changes his tracks eventually respecting the protagonist.

However it doesn't feel so much. There are messages and dialogs talking about the issues. Not much, but when the story doesn't have a tension, when you don't end up relating too much to the character, you miss hitting the mark. The film tries to talk about a good amount of relevant stuff but isn't so effective to show.

What's the story about? It's about a man who manages to work in an honest way in a corrupted world. So...what's the value that comes into play, caused by what? That the guy learns to work with the world, find honest blokes and work with them. Caused by...the harshness of the world.

Is there an arc for Harpreet? It's like - yes and no. Showing a do-goody-good bloke who ends up making other folks aware typically doesn't arc much; it's the others who do. However the fundamentals stressed through antagonist change doesn't work. Why? Well..since he has not been fleshed out greatly and the change in character is kind of contrived.


So...the good bit - it's somewhat of an earnest flick. By staying with one character all the way through as his conditions change isn't too bad a ride. But...it's not so effective.


Rating **1/2
[Max Rating ****]


[Viewed at Chembur, Suhas's, in Feb, 2010 thanks to Guru's DVD]

Viewed: INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

Tarantino is a master of thriller and suspense, which is interlaced with humor. In Inglourious Basterds he competently delivers once again a story that entertains you and gives your money worth.

The typical Tarantino devices are all there - long dialogues (though this one has not too-long ones), long scenes that grow with suspense not knowing where it could turn, his typical atypical music, captivating characters...

This is a story of a group of American Army Men who go to Nazi-occupied France to do to Nazi what they do to Jews - kill and maim with all mean vengeance. So...you have the leader, a hard-core, smart-dude, focused-to-kill, forthright guy (Brad Pitt) and his men, some of whom have reputation among Nazi for their cruel ways of killing.

The film opens with a great feel - a quietly paced scene that sets your pulse racing courtesy the stakes at play. And...it sets up one of the most charismatic antagonist played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz. The typical Tarantino chapters come into play throughout the film and the events are very entertaining especially as the characters and their relationships are truly captivating.

Tarantino is a master of scene-construction; he sets up the conflict almost playfully but with the stakes being always of life and death he brings in characters that come alive in such scenarios and makes the viewing engrossing.

Where the flick kind of flounders is the flip-flop of the Waltz character, which is not easy to believe considering what an indelible devious character he makes, who naively is willing to do a deal with Americans. That is difficult to accept and yet...the film does flow and there is satisfaction in the resolution.



Rating ***1/2

[Max Rating ****]



{Viewed in Feb, 2010 at Chembur. Also saw it on YashJi's 'Bafta' dvd!}

Viewed: 3 IDIOTS

Hirani has proved it before and he does it again - take a socially relevant topic and present it to make it effective as mass entertainment. In the process, give his message and comment on the society.

His standard ingredients - lot of humor, avoid violence, a good deal of melodrama, have characters that depict various segments of society and...an important one - know how to play with conflict to tell a story well.

As it happens there are moments that seem contrived, there are scenes that are stretched but eventually he manages to provide pretty solid entertainment.

He also uses certain characters, chiefly the antagonist, in a caricature - bring in humor, however give him enough strength in the plot to create obstacles for the protagonist and  on the way deliver what he wants to convey.

3 Idiots is another one in the league, a solid concept rendered in Hirani's design. This time banking on Aamir's acting and creating a cast that is always rooting for the hero who is the underdog, who shall eventually upstage the David.

The film starts on a humorous note, about Farhan meeting their ex-college mate so they can find their long-lost roomie. The beginning establishes what language we are dealing with and it gets into flashback to show what transpired till now.

As it builds enough 'image' about the protagonist, Rancho, they introduce him and just like the Munnabhai series, they showcase the basic plot of the film - Rancho has to deal with Principal whose principles are diametrically opposite to Rancho's.

The whole of the 2nd Act is about Ranchos antics within the college, which focuses on him converting his fellow room-mates and taking on the Principal. This is a challenging landscape but Hirani and Abhijat Joshi, co-writer do a pretty effective job in setting-up events that flow seamlessly and take on the story forward.

As you proceed, the story becomes the journey of 3 Idiots especially as it delves into the hassles his two friends, Farhan and Raju have to deal with - their families and the Princi, who is hell-bent on breaking them away from Rancho.

Eventually they pass-out from college with their new-beings. Rancho vanishes. And so when after 5 yrs they get to know his whereabouts they go to find him along with the girl he loved in college.

Though I don't recall Munnabhai too well, I found this one done better, in terms of not trying to preach. Letting the action speak; keeping the dialogues to minimal. Creating a cool protagonist, propping him up with a good circle of characters, who asks brief questions & goes on with his life backing his friends.

What worked for me was the seamless flow of story...and most critically - building a solid antagonist. That Chatur dude is terrific, others are solid but for my money the best actor was Irani, whose character is set-up and arced wonderfully.

The silliest scene for me was the one-scene change of Parikshit Sahni. Deja vu, Munnabhai - one long spiel from Munna on radio and folks change.

The writers do a great job in building Rancho's character. He is not a preacher. He has his own fundas and...he questions. But kind of innocently, and I think this is where they make him extremely love-able.

He is a guiding angel, who can never harm any one. And therein they created a god-like icon, who will help anyone. To enable people to see/hear the message, show a guy who is fearless, who means no harm, who has his secrets, who believes in humanity and who shall help any one. He is the one who every one aspires to be.

Seems Hirani doesn't believe in villains; all antagonist have a change of heart in the end. Everyone is nice and good and the world is wonderful. Well...that's what makes helluva money at box office if you can tell a fluid story. Though, Gajini and Gadar did alright too!


Rating ***
[Max Rating ****]


[Viewed thanks to Bunty on 11th Jan at home, Delhi]

Viewed: AVATAR

Cameron comes back with 3-D and creates another world and tells a simple story in an extremely captivating way.

It definitely helps when you watch new faces in a new world, never seen before. The experience is absolutely fresh and being strong in his story-telling skills, he doesn't miss out much.

It's a story of a restless soul with a good heart finding love in a new world of Pandora, where he is supposed to convince the species to vacate the land so man can plunder the treasure of an element. As he finds love he realizes the folly of man and takes on his own men in order for Pandora people to live in their world.

So you have an evil antaognist - an army guy who shall go to any length to kill. You have an angel (Sigourny Weaver) to help the protagonist gain wisdom to face the enemy. And...you have the journey of a 'hero'...who takes the call to adventure and as he takes on the battle he enters a new world.

However, the story seems too simplistic and characters one-dimensional. One would have hoped to see more on the storytelling level, especially when it's such an original piece in terms of filmmaking. We live in a more complex world; there is a lot of 'gray' within the band of black and white. If only it was paid more respect this film would have been quite complete.

This is an action-packed film, taking you into a totally new kind of movie making experience. It's not the normal 3-D when things come to you at times, but...where you are part of the world and go along with the hero on his journey.


Rating ***1/2
[Max Rating ****]


[Viewed at Fun with Guru, Moorthy, Natasha, Kranti and their friends on 22nd Dec, 09]

Viewed: PAA

There is a good-will running in the country courtesy the film's subject dealing with a unique illness, where a child ages extremely fast. He is into old age by the time he is 10.

Amitabh Bachchan stars as the kid and his dad is played by his real son. Directed by Balki who helmed Cheeni Kum, this is a film that is set to be 'touching'. With its brush of cuteness, which was the hallmark of Cheeni Kum too, the film doesn't deliver as it should have.

The story is simple - a young woman impregnated by her boyfriend who is not keen to marry her courtesy his political ambitions gives birth to a kid who has Progenia. She rears the son on her own along with her mother. Fate brings the boy to meet his father and when they discover the truth, the boy plays cupid.

It's difficult to pin-point what's the film is about though of course it has many a takes - pre-marital sex; political aspirations of an honest man; the unique disease; single-mom parenting, but...it's difficult to find the focus.

There are cute depictions of every thing including the kid (Auro's) life in a school. Almost every thing is extra-polished just so the characters shine and appear goody-good, be it Auro, his dad, mom, granny and his friends.

As was the case in his previous film, Balki makes kids at times sound too mature and enjoys references that are supposed to elicit smiles, like the granny being referred to as 'Bum', since she has a big one. Boy...

The film opens quick and at least moves with good momentum but into the 2nd Act it fails to build tension. You know the kid and the dad will have to meet up and there would be a confrontation, but it drags.

The first 'big' event is the mid-point, where Auro is told that his MP friend is his dad. This is a critical moment but it does not work strongly since Auro's character has not been set-up - there has never been any curiosity and only after he discovers he gets interested. This may not be a bad plot but then it should have come sooner.

And when the paa discovers Auro's mom, you of course know how it will all end. Again not bad per se even if you know that Auro will die and folks will get together - they are all nice people with hardly any flaws!

Whose story is it? It's every one's. Another tricky road to walk with multiple protagonists and with multiple point-of-views, it's difficult to connect especially when there isn't much to arc.

One is banking on the goodness of everyone and the cuteness of Auro to work, which it has for masses. Reason it's been a success at the box office.

The good thing by default thing in the film is playing with few characters. Even if there are many in the film, when you are with three and do an okay job telling a tale, it works okay. Not great. Not good. Okay.

Every one has been raving about the performances but they are just okay. Abhishek is okay playing a straight-up dude. Vidya Balan is fine. As for AB, hidden by the make-up there isn't actually much scope except for voice and using the body, and he does alright.


Rating **
[Max Rating ****]


[Viewed thanks to Bunty on 11th Jan at home, Delhi]