Interesting concept. A decent job. Takes two good actors (Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher) and puts them against each other, with a good cast of support actors. It does try to follow some 'bad habits' of Bollywood flicks - cute dialogues, over-playing stuff and a long monologue, though thankfully, it only happens in the end.
What really works for the flick is a clear conflict, and a (neat) twist in the end that falls a bit flat with the monologue. Though, it's not too bad, since the film builds towards that and as the ending becomes an anti-climax it's Naseeruddin at 'show'.
It's a thriller. The film builds suspense and does a nice job. A lot of outdoor shoot makes it watchable. But would I watch it with a lot of enthusiasm again? Well, I could watch it, but would not be getting too kicked about it.
Rating **1/2
[Max ****]
Monday, January 5, 2009
Having a wonderful time, wish you could hear: My comments on Ebert's blog
I have been a part of exhibition industry in Bombay for many years. And I would be pleasantly (very) surprised, if this film gets a release. I was fortunate to watch it in Denver but am sure back home things will be viewed differently.
Indians are 'laid-back' and 'tolerant'? Well, I would believe so. But...they are also quite 'sensitive', and...the political system is such that you are always looking for agendas to be in the limelight.
What this film does - makes fun of (Lord) Rama; for me, it works; for me, it makes sense, and I could even seen it in good humor. But...it doesn't work that way with a character, rather a GOD, who is the supreme being in a country full of Hindus.
Eventually, you will see that we are not that 'tolerant'!
This film will not be viable even from a business perspective, though it could perhaps get a 'look-in' at some festival, if it has (ironically) a low-profile.
I can visualize a meeting of top multiplexes, wherein they shall straight away rule out playing this film - this film would be deemed as offensive and 'disrespectful', plus you don't want an unnecessary hassle as the only people who shall 'love' this film would be the political junkies. They would love it plays, so they can some and stop it with their violent protests. Even if the controversy creates extra interest about the film, it will not get the monies. So yeah, a pity that it would be a dead-duck.
There are people who would appreciate such a film but alas won't get an opportunity. Yeah, 'blues' galore in the land of tricolor.
Ebert's Blog: The birds of prey are circling
Why do we thirst for movie stars to fail? Why are so many showbiz journalists like hyenas circling a crippled prey? Why do so many gossip columnists behave like jilted lovers or betrayed investors, livid with anger at what they once valued so highly? Why are a few stars singled out like the victims of school bullies? Why do the box office receipts of "Australia" appear in almost every news outlet, but an actual review of it appears in so few?...................
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/01/gossips_as_birds_of_prey.html
Here's a bonus on a film (Sita Sings the Blue) that i was lucky to watch in Denver, which am convinced will never get a commercial release in India:
To get any film made is a miracle. To conceive of a film like this is a greater miracle. How did Paley's mind work? She begins with the story of Ramayana, which is known to every school child in India but not to me. It tells the story of a brave, noble woman who was made to suffer because of the perfidy of a spineless husband and his mother. This is a story known to every school child in America. They learn it at their mother's knee. Paley depicts the story with exuberant drawings in bright colors. It is about a prince named Rama who treated Sita shamefully, although she loved him and was faithful to him.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/having_wonderful_time_wish_you.html#more
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/01/gossips_as_birds_of_prey.html
Here's a bonus on a film (Sita Sings the Blue) that i was lucky to watch in Denver, which am convinced will never get a commercial release in India:
To get any film made is a miracle. To conceive of a film like this is a greater miracle. How did Paley's mind work? She begins with the story of Ramayana, which is known to every school child in India but not to me. It tells the story of a brave, noble woman who was made to suffer because of the perfidy of a spineless husband and his mother. This is a story known to every school child in America. They learn it at their mother's knee. Paley depicts the story with exuberant drawings in bright colors. It is about a prince named Rama who treated Sita shamefully, although she loved him and was faithful to him.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/having_wonderful_time_wish_you.html#more
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Viewed: WALL-E
Film: WALL-E
I finally watched the much acclaimed 'Wall-E' and yeah...Pixar just keeps on excelling; it's amazing how consistently terrific they are.
Discovered this about Andrew Stanton, writer-director, who also had the same credits for, Finding Nemo. So...consider his 'status'!
In an interview with World Magazine's Megan Basham, Stanton explained his singular vision for WALL-E: "(W)hat really interested me was the idea of the most human thing in the universe being a machine because it has more interest in finding out what the point of living is than actual people. The greatest commandment Christ gives us is to love, but that's not always our priority. So I came up with this premise that could demonstrate what I was trying to say—that irrational love defeats the world's programming. You've got these two robots that are trying to go above their basest directives, literally their programming, to experience love..."[1]
Animation flicks are supposed to be great examples of screenwriting, since it's very expensive to create; as such every scene counts, and...typically in every good animation, there is no a single extra scene. And Pixar has just taken every thing to another level. I saw some shorts, which these guys did for 'time-pass'...building their talent and preparing for bigger stuff and...each is bloody unique, highly entertaining, and when it comes to features, well each has what we are taught here - deeper meaning (theme.)
So if you haven't, it would be good fun checking out Wall-E.
Rating ***1/2
[Max ****]
I finally watched the much acclaimed 'Wall-E' and yeah...Pixar just keeps on excelling; it's amazing how consistently terrific they are.
Discovered this about Andrew Stanton, writer-director, who also had the same credits for, Finding Nemo. So...consider his 'status'!
In an interview with World Magazine's Megan Basham, Stanton explained his singular vision for WALL-E: "(W)hat really interested me was the idea of the most human thing in the universe being a machine because it has more interest in finding out what the point of living is than actual people. The greatest commandment Christ gives us is to love, but that's not always our priority. So I came up with this premise that could demonstrate what I was trying to say—that irrational love defeats the world's programming. You've got these two robots that are trying to go above their basest directives, literally their programming, to experience love..."[1]
Animation flicks are supposed to be great examples of screenwriting, since it's very expensive to create; as such every scene counts, and...typically in every good animation, there is no a single extra scene. And Pixar has just taken every thing to another level. I saw some shorts, which these guys did for 'time-pass'...building their talent and preparing for bigger stuff and...each is bloody unique, highly entertaining, and when it comes to features, well each has what we are taught here - deeper meaning (theme.)
So if you haven't, it would be good fun checking out Wall-E.
Rating ***1/2
[Max ****]
Monday, December 29, 2008
ESSENTIAL PRODUCTION CHECKLIST FOR THE FILMMAKER
ESSENTIAL PRODUCTION CHECKLIST FOR THE FILMMAKER
1. What's the opening shot of your film and why? Will this set you apart as a filmmaker? How does it fit in with the rest of your film?
2. The introduction of a character can be an exciting visual moment, and an important opportunity for you as a filmmaker. How do you plan on introducing your protagonist and other important characters?
3. Identify the main character in your film. Are you assigning any elements of production design to be associated with your main character? Colors (hue, sat, temp), tones, lines, shapes, spaces, patterns, other? Please elaborate:
4. How does the production design scheme for the protagonist above contrast or combine with that of your antagonist and / or obstacle?
5. How does the production design scheme for your protagonist compare to that of your other characters (supporting or otherwise)?
6. Does your main character, or any other character undergo change? Are these changes reflected by changes in your production design? (Or does everything stay consistent)
7. If there are changes, how are these changes reflected by changes in your lighting design?
8. How will these changes be reflected by changes in your camera technique and shot design?
9. Identify key turning points in your script – as a director, how do you plan on supporting these key points visually, and / or with the use of sound?
10. Is there a place your character belongs? Or does not belong? How will you show this?
11. Are there uses of your camera, lighting and production design that could be interpreted as elements of plating and payoff?
12. How visually, will you convey important psychological moments and insights of character?
13. As your story progresses, how will you visually convey a sense of building tension... leading up to the all important moment of climax?
14. Do you plan to make the climax the most visually exciting moment of your film? If so then how?
15. Ideally, every shot should be in some way motivated. But sometimes we may want to try special shots just for fun, to show off a little, or to push ourselves and see if it can be done. Are you planning any kinds of special shots? If so are they motivated? Could they be?
1. What's the opening shot of your film and why? Will this set you apart as a filmmaker? How does it fit in with the rest of your film?
2. The introduction of a character can be an exciting visual moment, and an important opportunity for you as a filmmaker. How do you plan on introducing your protagonist and other important characters?
3. Identify the main character in your film. Are you assigning any elements of production design to be associated with your main character? Colors (hue, sat, temp), tones, lines, shapes, spaces, patterns, other? Please elaborate:
4. How does the production design scheme for the protagonist above contrast or combine with that of your antagonist and / or obstacle?
5. How does the production design scheme for your protagonist compare to that of your other characters (supporting or otherwise)?
6. Does your main character, or any other character undergo change? Are these changes reflected by changes in your production design? (Or does everything stay consistent)
7. If there are changes, how are these changes reflected by changes in your lighting design?
8. How will these changes be reflected by changes in your camera technique and shot design?
9. Identify key turning points in your script – as a director, how do you plan on supporting these key points visually, and / or with the use of sound?
10. Is there a place your character belongs? Or does not belong? How will you show this?
11. Are there uses of your camera, lighting and production design that could be interpreted as elements of plating and payoff?
12. How visually, will you convey important psychological moments and insights of character?
13. As your story progresses, how will you visually convey a sense of building tension... leading up to the all important moment of climax?
14. Do you plan to make the climax the most visually exciting moment of your film? If so then how?
15. Ideally, every shot should be in some way motivated. But sometimes we may want to try special shots just for fun, to show off a little, or to push ourselves and see if it can be done. Are you planning any kinds of special shots? If so are they motivated? Could they be?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Film Business: 'Development' in Hollywood
(15th-17th Dec)
The dope from Sandra on 'Development' and 'Talent Agencies' in
Hollywood. (she had worked for both such companies; on 'Development'
she worked with Wendy Finerman, whose claim to fame was getting
Forrest Gump made; Sandra worked on The Devil Wears Prada and other
flicks)
The dope from Sandra on 'Development' and 'Talent Agencies' in
Hollywood. (she had worked for both such companies; on 'Development'
she worked with Wendy Finerman, whose claim to fame was getting
Forrest Gump made; Sandra worked on The Devil Wears Prada and other
flicks)
DEVELOPMENT
- Focuses on developing the script; 'development' strictly refers to
script development
- The company may be involved with production too; typically, Wendy
gets into production - her team may not be involved, but she is.
- Guess the number of the team when Sandra worked, when they did The
Devil Wears Prada? A huge number - 3! That's it - three.
- The main job: find a good story/script; find people who do good
stuff, but...keep looking out
- At a given time - how much scripts each person works with - it could
be 30. This means...talking to writers, talking/pitching to producers,
working with writers to develop the script, negotiation and...once the
script is green-lit then working on the project.
- Finding writers - she once went to Craig List and put up a
requirement. Lo and behold every day she would get 300 emails (am sure
it's relatively much easier to have people respond with stories here,
even though they may not be solid, since every 2nd (film) person seems
to have his/her own story)
- Skills required -
Script analysis, 'feel' for the story (you need to focus on finding a
great story)
(22nd Dec)
- Studios do have their own departments, but as good stories are hard
to find, they are typically open to meeting such development firm
- Development Fee: From what I recall, as per Sandra, though you may
negotiate, typically a Studio will say how much they shall give you
and you work with that. But...am sure it's all open for negotiation.
- Wendy Finerman Productions had a deal with...hmm, Warner i think, or
Columbia; they had the first right of refusal, so if they did then (of
course) they could go to anyone
- Typically, with new writers - WFP would (or others too) - option off
the script for free - this means that you get the right to pitch the
script to anyone (for a specific period), without paying any money to
writer. He gets paid only when you do a sale.
My Take:
- This is definitely an interesting business to explore
- The fact you can work with a very small team is great; one may even
work part-time, though I realize the focus may not be as strong
- The critical aspect - script analysis - this is definitely not a
joke. This entails knowing what to look for in a story, how to make a
story works, how the story will be 'converted' into film, its
marketability, knowing the market
So...
- learn, read as much as possible on story
- read as many scripts as possible
- identify and interact with people who have ability to evaluate
scripts and story
- know what it takes to tell a good story economically
- have a pulse on the existing scenario/society
- build network - especially with producers, directors & writers
- ...whatever works!
(The 'talent agencies' bit I shall try to collect my thoughts and
memory later; even need to talk to Sue, my script-writing instructor.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
It's a vicious game. I belong to Bombay (Mumbai) and see a similar deal in 'Bollywood'. The way I see it:
- it's typically, a 'kick' to see someone fall (especially, as majority of us don't have it in us to make it, or...to strive)
- the 'professionals' (journalists in this case), don't want to work hard enough to get to the 'truth', or opine with honesty, even if that subjective 'honesty' maybe in contrast to other's take-away from that object/film; Scott Peck said, 'Man by nature is lazy', and that kinda applies every where.
- my impression of the powers-that-be at most of the places is that they want something big and yeah...the 'stars' are easy prey.
I also have a problem with the opposite, when sometimes stars are praised for their 'superlative' performance (of course, that's my 'subjective' opinion!) But there is a sense of exaggeration - to build the Gods; I can understand for the star-value they bring-in, but when they relate it to acting, which is wanting at times, it seems weird.
Like in Bollywood, it's interesting, how a 'social' film, with lot of messages, move the audience; i realize they have a history for that; films with 'sermons' can move them a lot; more interesting is how in that scenario...appears good.
But then...the Box Office does tend to reveal the true picture eventually. Opening-weekend is almost like a sham, and I find it amusing how 'smartly' the distributors and producers celebrate the success of their film based on that, and sometimes even before the 2nd weekend, the film goes down under.
(Just discovered your blog on Sita Sings the Blue; since am in usa for some months, i was fortunate to catch it in the Denver Fest, and it was interesting to note that the best 2008 films on India, were not by Indians! This one and Slumdog. The irony is that Sita Sings...will not be released in our country; i hope not, but i know that no distributor will have guts to play a film that shows one of the true sides of the Lord Rama. Well, that's the way it is...)
Ebert: On the other hand, some of the best English-language novel of recent years are by Indians. There's much disagreement among my (surprisingly many, nearly 16,000 last month) Indian readers about whether "Sita" is affectionate or disrespectful.