Roger Ebert
If I were a film producer hoping to make a movie with deep appeal, I would consciously look for Elevation--remembering that it seems to come not through messages or happy endings or sad ones, but in moments when characters we believe in--even an animated robot garbageman--achieve something good. I have observed before that we live in a box of space and time, and movies can open a window in the box. One human life, closely observed, is everyone's life. In the particular is the universal. Empathy is the feeling that most makes us human. Elevation may be the emotion caused when we see people giving themselves up, if only for a moment, to caring about others.
I feel good! I knew that I would!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Viewed: Trainspotting
Danny Boyle's (the man behind Slumdog Millionaire) claim-to-fame (1996) film is a fun film about a young man and his gang of friends who are heroine-addicts living an underworld life in Scotland, with not much meaning in life, and struggling with growing-up in an environment that has nothing much to offer. It is fast-paced, lively and with touching moments; it's not a film without meaning.
The protagonist, Renton narrates his story about his drug addiction, living with his gang of friends, trying to get rid of the habit and live a clean life; in the process he goes through various incidents involving his friends It's an extremely quick-cut edited flick, which works well in depicting the lives of Renton and his friends, who are all pretty interesting characters.
Though it did remind me of flicks like Lock, Stock and Smoking Barrel, and Snatch, it was refreshing; it even reminded me of drug scenes from Requiem for a Dream. But Ewan McGregor is great and you go with this character all the way. It's definitely a pretty interesting watch.
Based on the novel by Irvine Welsh
Screenplay: John Hodge
Director: Danny Boyle
Rating ***1/2
[Max ****]
The protagonist, Renton narrates his story about his drug addiction, living with his gang of friends, trying to get rid of the habit and live a clean life; in the process he goes through various incidents involving his friends It's an extremely quick-cut edited flick, which works well in depicting the lives of Renton and his friends, who are all pretty interesting characters.
Though it did remind me of flicks like Lock, Stock and Smoking Barrel, and Snatch, it was refreshing; it even reminded me of drug scenes from Requiem for a Dream. But Ewan McGregor is great and you go with this character all the way. It's definitely a pretty interesting watch.
Based on the novel by Irvine Welsh
Screenplay: John Hodge
Director: Danny Boyle
Rating ***1/2
[Max ****]
Review (Berardinelli): Chandni Chowk to China + Blogging
I have always enjoyed the reviews of James Berardinelli; he is an IT dude, who started doing reviews more than 10-15 yrs back, guess just for kicks; he isn't technically an 'academician' or anything but is extremely passionate about films and also opines on the issues of the industry. He would put his reviews on a Web site, which now has become a huge database.
Today...on the most checked-out online reviews...he regularly ranks at No.2; sometimes even No.1; the man above is USA's leading critic (legend), Roger Ebert. In its own way it's quite a staggering achievement - all the top reviewers of top magazines, news sites, rank below him. He IS now a respected figure in the field; goes to show what you can do (on your own) thanks to the power of the internet.
I usually relate a lot to his reviews. I think i even mailed him thrice, some dope and...he got back twice. Anyway, today i read something, which really impressed me: his (pretty exhaustive) review/thoughts on Akshay Kumar's CC2C. Of course I haven't seen the flick and don't plan to either (!), but he might be bang-on (for my money.)
He gives it 2.5 stars out of 4, which is decent I would say; another guy who got into india-china fusion et al tanned it (i just browsed through the opening bit); i would suspect that they have been 'fed' a lot of info on Akshay, as both hit the mark on that, but it's interesting to see their views and how:
ReelViews
While I departed the theater with reservations, I will admit to liking this more than many of the painful American films opening during the same time period.
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=1447
VillageVoice
Kumar's devotion to the Chinese martial arts is apparently sincere. Yet it is CC2C's central failure that Advani and company barely interact at all with the culture they supposedly set out to celebrate. There's no possibility of China-India fusion because the twain barely meet.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-01-14/film/bollywood-goes-east-mdash-far-east-mdash-for-chandni-chowk-to-china/
Good News - I will soon be 'freeing' everyone of the load I mail time and again! One of my resolutions of the year I intend sticking to - shift to blogging; everything remains online, which is easy for me to access and...if anyone is (really!) interested he/she knows where to go. I realize that everyone leads a pretty hectic life, so I shouldn't overload them! There are 11 more months to go this year, but hopefully I will break the chain this month.
Thanks to my New Jersey pal, Sachin...i created the following blog; i wonder if I should create more for better management, but at least for a while I shall stick to one.
Good luck...
Today...on the most checked-out online reviews...he regularly ranks at No.2; sometimes even No.1; the man above is USA's leading critic (legend), Roger Ebert. In its own way it's quite a staggering achievement - all the top reviewers of top magazines, news sites, rank below him. He IS now a respected figure in the field; goes to show what you can do (on your own) thanks to the power of the internet.
I usually relate a lot to his reviews. I think i even mailed him thrice, some dope and...he got back twice. Anyway, today i read something, which really impressed me: his (pretty exhaustive) review/thoughts on Akshay Kumar's CC2C. Of course I haven't seen the flick and don't plan to either (!), but he might be bang-on (for my money.)
He gives it 2.5 stars out of 4, which is decent I would say; another guy who got into india-china fusion et al tanned it (i just browsed through the opening bit); i would suspect that they have been 'fed' a lot of info on Akshay, as both hit the mark on that, but it's interesting to see their views and how:
ReelViews
While I departed the theater with reservations, I will admit to liking this more than many of the painful American films opening during the same time period.
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=1447
VillageVoice
Kumar's devotion to the Chinese martial arts is apparently sincere. Yet it is CC2C's central failure that Advani and company barely interact at all with the culture they supposedly set out to celebrate. There's no possibility of China-India fusion because the twain barely meet.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-01-14/film/bollywood-goes-east-mdash-far-east-mdash-for-chandni-chowk-to-china/
Good News - I will soon be 'freeing' everyone of the load I mail time and again! One of my resolutions of the year I intend sticking to - shift to blogging; everything remains online, which is easy for me to access and...if anyone is (really!) interested he/she knows where to go. I realize that everyone leads a pretty hectic life, so I shouldn't overload them! There are 11 more months to go this year, but hopefully I will break the chain this month.
Thanks to my New Jersey pal, Sachin...i created the following blog; i wonder if I should create more for better management, but at least for a while I shall stick to one.
| http://maibaap123.blogspot.com/ |
Good luck...
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
AB does it too...
Haha...I am sorry, I thought I was over with it, but I can't help laughing on how the (great?) 'AB' makes a DUD comment and...amazing that he even gets Ray in the picture for getting the limelight as he delved into 'reality' (which he deems it as 'poverty' :-)
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/big-b-reviews-slumdog-millionaire-slams-it/82741-8.html
Superstar Amitabh Bachchan has criticised Slumdog Millionaire, the Golden-Globe winning movie which tells the rags-to-riches tale of an orphan from a Mumbai slum, for portraying India as a "Third World dirty underbelly developing nation".
This is what has always convinced me - even the so-called best of stars (the so-called exceptional giants and wise men) don't get it. Despite all the fame and adulation, they remain extra-sensitive and...insecure. They live in their delicate (adulation-polished) ivory-towers and that's fantastic, but...deep-down they are never happy living in their own world.
Interesting that Ray isn't a patch when it comes to getting the fame wrt AB, but it seems to bite AB hard when the (non-Indian) world appreciates Ray (more than him?!)
And...is he totally a dud to not see what Slumdog is all about? Hmm...or maybe it's me!. And ok, what if Slumdog does focus on that; what's stopping him to work with the world's brightest talent (in our Mumbai as he always harps about) to make world-class escapist cinema? Hmm...i guess he thinks he already has and world citizens are not so bright enough to understand that.
It would be interesting to see what his wife, Jaya says, who made her debut in Ray's film; maybe she has gone senile too. Well a pity that AB (also) doesn't get it. But it's okay...like everyone, his days are numbered too...only he will 'die in fame'...but i wonder how much that really matters. Hmm...interesting theme for a flick, I would say!
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/big-b-reviews-slumdog-millionaire-slams-it/82741-8.html
Superstar Amitabh Bachchan has criticised Slumdog Millionaire, the Golden-Globe winning movie which tells the rags-to-riches tale of an orphan from a Mumbai slum, for portraying India as a "Third World dirty underbelly developing nation".
This is what has always convinced me - even the so-called best of stars (the so-called exceptional giants and wise men) don't get it. Despite all the fame and adulation, they remain extra-sensitive and...insecure. They live in their delicate (adulation-polished) ivory-towers and that's fantastic, but...deep-down they are never happy living in their own world.
Interesting that Ray isn't a patch when it comes to getting the fame wrt AB, but it seems to bite AB hard when the (non-Indian) world appreciates Ray (more than him?!)
And...is he totally a dud to not see what Slumdog is all about? Hmm...or maybe it's me!. And ok, what if Slumdog does focus on that; what's stopping him to work with the world's brightest talent (in our Mumbai as he always harps about) to make world-class escapist cinema? Hmm...i guess he thinks he already has and world citizens are not so bright enough to understand that.
It would be interesting to see what his wife, Jaya says, who made her debut in Ray's film; maybe she has gone senile too. Well a pity that AB (also) doesn't get it. But it's okay...like everyone, his days are numbered too...only he will 'die in fame'...but i wonder how much that really matters. Hmm...interesting theme for a flick, I would say!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM:
Some POV's post the awards....Juhu Slum Dwellers Prefer Ghajani.Um, Slums.
Also --Title of the movie is very important --like the title " Slumdog Crorepati" is not very SINGLE SCREEN friendly ... the "SlumDog" bit....so its difficult to get Single screens barring a few...premium ones....---------------------------
Slumdog and the Slums
I think this is a 'dangerous' trend, and also part of the Indian psyche - 'react before you see', and then exaggerate as we get charged-up since we are so 'sweetly sentimental', and then to be wary of foreign appreciation, which we may deem it as 'exploitative'.
At the end of the day, or the year, India produces more masala (so-called,escapist cinema) than realistic cinema; heck..realism is almost dead, except for very few flicks. India's biggest block-busters are all masalas. The YRF, Johar brand of cinema, the song-n-dance, typically show opulence , which is miles away from 'reality'. Does that work? Sure. If audience go for it, have a good time, then who are we to criticize that.
The thing is...even the masalas need to play with 'universal emotions'...they need to have some sort of a theme that connect with the audience, whether it's the character or the story...unless they execute well, it wont' work. But so is true of the 'realistic' films.
What I find funny is that Slumdog is being taken so 'seriously'; it is a very good masala flick, it's a 'smart' one and...as i said before, tried to play with 'realism' by showing life of a slum-kid; if you tell a story of slum-guy, you need to show him there, not sitting in a huge bungalow! And...90% of flicks are anyway would show life in a bungalow, then why do we get disturbed by this one 'minority' flick?!
Because, they have shown how effective good story-telling can be? Which we quite suck at? Slumdog for me is primarily a love story with the backdrop of KBC of a slum-kid. For many of the phirang critics (yup, phirangs can be pretentious and perhaps indulge in pity too)...it's a film about hope and that's what it is; you should read Roger Ebert's review on why he backs-up this film. And...it's told in Bollywood-style; it IS a homage to Bollywood as Loveleen Tandon, co-director also points out. Someone thought Anil Kapoor sucked, but watch him close and you shall see that his mannerisms are close to a bollywood (masala) villain, well...that over-the-top was all intentional!
Ray
As for Ray's Pather Panchali, well maybe the journalist is trying to be 'objective' by using that example, but again...it's a dangerous trend to put 'pather panchali' against the word 'poverty'. If Nargis was dumb, we can't do much about it. Pather Panchali is again a film about hope and how the family struggles and copes with the ups and downs of life, like any family, who maybe billionaires; he based it in a village (courtesy Bhibhutibhushan Bannerjee's novel) and it shines like very flicks do. Why? 'Cos it's seeped in realism and it's all about emotions.
So yeah, I find it corny when the 'intellectuals' walk that line. Sure, when we get used to watching the 'escapist' cinema, it gets hard to open our heads to other. In fact, I am truly grateful for the appreciation course we took (under Ashok Rane Sir), wherein lot of folks would tell us something - you are the student of cinema, 'watch it for more' not like normal audience, and...it's tough for us too; am dead sure the normal audience would watch it for (sub-conscious) 'emotions', and that's how it should be, but it IS dangerous when you put such (poor!) thoughts in mind.
Journalism itself is so interesting (and dicey) in our land. I will never forget what someone had pointed out in a web article - the irony of the situation when Ray was given the lifetime oscar and was interviewed by none other than the giant of tv journalism, a guy i like too, Prannoy Roy (and I could recall that interview, which he did from his bed, as he was invalid...those were his last days) - Roy, in all his brilliance, and intellect asked him something like - what do you feel when the world considers Pather Panchali as a film depicting India's poverty?
Ray being sick, in very bad shape, was fragile like a child...but tried to explain his best what the film was about, he struggled since he couldn't speak coherently. It was one sad moment; the genius, on his death-bed was being made to justify a fantastic film & his cinema.
Why - because India's top journo also didn't 'get the film' and how he was being instrumental in creating a further screwed-up vision about the film and about the film-maker; Ray was being humiliated, he was being made to represent a cinema that highlighted India in poor light and because it was perceived that that's how the world appreciated his cinema.
In fact, from what I see, his films are kinda 'dead' in India and abroad too; normal audience will not be too excited to go, unless you really do excellent marketing. The people of cinema across the world who love his cinema, the 'students' and 'academicians', do so for the true value of his works. Btw, not only was he an awesome film-maker, but a terrific screenwriter; if you need to learn writing...you need to observe his screenwriting and check-out the 'economy'.
As for Pather Panchali it is basically, 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham' :-) That's what it is, of course, for my money (at least), you just can't compare the two, but then, yeah...the latter worked for the masses.
It's 'Fresh'
Slumdog may not work for you. But if you are in the position of being a 'student of cinema', step-back and try to evaluate the setting and the emotions, the theme and the tone the film is playing with. And try to see the elements at play - kbc, slum life, suspense, masala, the scenes on the train (definitely used as a motif), the transition from kids to adults et al.
Another thing, which makes the film very special - it's highly original. (Something we are told at school to try to be - originality really shines and captivates if you can make it play well.) Like Chak De was too and that's why it was special for many; who would have thought of making a film on hockey that too women, though....i did think it was a 'smart' move by YRF - you can show 11 or more girls in mini-skirts throughout the flick and the world would 'love' watching them :-) Of course, for the film to work, people need to relate to it and it had (interesting) characters which people fell in love with and like Slumdog...it was the story of an 'underdog'.
Would We Make Slumdog?
I wish the journalists would ask the question - why can't Indians make such flicks? As i was अस्किंग which company in India would have backed this project? It was apparently made at $15 million and as of yesterday had earned $35 million, and after the Oscars, when it gets a re-release or a wider one, it should go over $100 million over the time. Not bad, huh.
Would the brightest brains of our production houses stepped back and said - hey, lets take this story by an Indian (!), and...let's get a foreign director and make an 'international' film and put 70 crores with no stars, no song-n-dance?! I mea, just looking at it from a purely money perspective?
Ghajini, India's BIG hit, touched 200 cr the other day; around $40 million, and would do more...but Slumdog with the awards et al...should get much stronger; so....doesn't it make sense to walk that line?! Who would have thought that? Why didn't we? Looking at the past record / content, perhaps only UTV would come near that 'frame'; guess Reliance (Big?) should start thinking too considering the stuff they own in USA.
By the way, from what I read and understand, the story happened due to one guy - Simon Beaufoy, the writer, who worked on it for 3 yrs and...also came to Bombay and would visit the slums. Now...who in right mind would do such a thing, right :-)
(so...writers and makers, if your setting is orginal, if the emotions are universal...'believe' in your story/stories! And maybe pitch to foreign firms ;-)
Marketing / Title
As for marketing, the title would be a bit of a hassle...sure. But...i strongly believe it's the (right) mindset (of marketers) that's the key. The key is pronounciation and it's not difficult ('Slumdog' has just two syllables.)
Of course, we had Aamir selling, 'Ghajini', but...what does that mean? I actually used to think that it was the name of the girl/heroine for a long time; since the PR et al would only be around Aamir and his lady-love! And then i discovered that it was the villain (and i didn't find him extra-ordinary); point is - audience across wouldn't have known anyway what n' who Ghajini was looking at the promotion; it's only Aamir and the dream-girl. Like, I am convinced, all of us love the sound of 'Sholay', not think about the 'angarey', fire or whatever!
The name, Slumdog Crorepati (not too user-friendly) could work I think with aggressive promotion; one master-stroke of the film that will help it relate to the masses is - using the KBC angle, but then...that IS the story. And as my uncle pointed out, it really helps in selling the film in USA and UK, as masses know the hit program - Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Lagaan is harder to relate to as they dont know cricket, but this works, and it's true, after-all the whole film revolves around the questions-answers of this program.
Commercial Element
My gut-feel says the film will not do as great commercially as its potential, which I believe it has. We would discount it on many a things and go easy. Anyway, let's see. It'd definitely go into the hall of fame if it picks up an Oscar or two, which would be fantastic considering that it's a film about India, story about an India guy and has only Indian actors.
It really shows what potential a good story has - and i say, forget the acclaim and awards (which is helping of course), just look at the money, as that's the reasoning India's big banners give when they scare away from such (dicey) content to indulge in 'entertaining' escapist cinema.
There IS some progress and again...UTV takes the lead by doing smaller-budget (interesting) flicks. But it seems too slow. For every Oye Lucky or a rare, Slumdog, you have a SRK or Akshay Kumar super-hit and those 'n' number of flicks who want to ape that success, and despite the 'original' making as fantastic returns, they keep sticking to same stuff.
I guess, it's really hard walking the other line. And the key - telling a good story, for which all our mythology background, dadi-maa story-telling culture, and producing the maximum flicks in the world...we remain weak at. Yup...it's all about 'poverty'.
Boy! Enough...
Viewed: INTO THE WILD
Sean Penn goes behind the camera to direct this film based on a true story of a young man who after finishing high school leaves everything behind - his parents (a fighting couple), his loving sister, identity, money - and travels as a vagabond, meeting interesting people on the way, to living alone in Alaska.
The film begins with Alex going into the wild, into the unknown land of Alaska and it shows his journey as it goes into flash-backs over the duration. He is a strong, determined kid, with strong convictions and keeps moving forward. Once in Alaska he finds an abandoned bus, which he makes into his home. He enjoys his solitude but later struggles with his loneliness and as the 'wildness' gets to him.
It's a pretty interesting film considering it tracks the journey of this one person, a bright young man, fed-up with his parents fighting, with the world, who is an idealist and lives his dream of being free and going with the flow. The film also gives the point of view of his sister's throughout the film through her voice-over. The film ambles with Alex's journey going through different terrains - shows different regions and his interactions with different sorts of people; it sets a pretty relaxed pace of viewing.
Alex is an interesting character; the standard 'rising tension' seems amiss in the film....he is passive and yet to an extent you are captivated by his journey. However the film does suffer from 'trying-to-be-cute' characters & dialogues; there are some contrived moments and sometimes the momentum does seem to lag. Where it scores is in making the film grand, just focused on one individual and you do end up liking and caring for this character.
Rating ***
[Max ****]
The film begins with Alex going into the wild, into the unknown land of Alaska and it shows his journey as it goes into flash-backs over the duration. He is a strong, determined kid, with strong convictions and keeps moving forward. Once in Alaska he finds an abandoned bus, which he makes into his home. He enjoys his solitude but later struggles with his loneliness and as the 'wildness' gets to him.
It's a pretty interesting film considering it tracks the journey of this one person, a bright young man, fed-up with his parents fighting, with the world, who is an idealist and lives his dream of being free and going with the flow. The film also gives the point of view of his sister's throughout the film through her voice-over. The film ambles with Alex's journey going through different terrains - shows different regions and his interactions with different sorts of people; it sets a pretty relaxed pace of viewing.
Alex is an interesting character; the standard 'rising tension' seems amiss in the film....he is passive and yet to an extent you are captivated by his journey. However the film does suffer from 'trying-to-be-cute' characters & dialogues; there are some contrived moments and sometimes the momentum does seem to lag. Where it scores is in making the film grand, just focused on one individual and you do end up liking and caring for this character.
Rating ***
[Max ****]
Re: Slumdog (+ Ray) Media Take
(I opined (sorry, very long mail!) on something Bhumika sent me: two links, which you may check below first if u hv the time.)
----------------------
Also --Title of the movie is very important --like the title " Slumdog Crorepati" is not very SINGLE SCREEN friendly ... the "SlumDog" bit....so its difficult to get Single screens barring a few...premium ones....
---------------------------
Slumdog and the Slums
I think this is a 'dangerous' trend, and also part of the Indian psyche - 'react before you see', and then exaggerate as we get charged-up since we are so 'sweetly sentimental', and then to be wary of foreign appreciation, which we may deem it as 'exploitative'.
At the end of the day, or the year, India produces more masala (so-called,escapist cinema) than realistic cinema; heck..realism is almost dead, except for very few flicks. India's biggest block-busters are all masalas. The YRF, Johar brand of cinema, the song-n-dance, typically show opulence , which is miles away from 'reality'. Does that work? Sure. If audience go for it, have a good time, then who are we to criticize that.
The thing is...even the masalas need to play with 'universal emotions'...they need to have some sort of a theme that connect with the audience, whether it's the character or the story...unless they execute well, it wont' work. But so is true of the 'realistic' films.
What I find funny is that Slumdog is being taken so 'seriously'; it is a very good masala flick, it's a 'smart' one and...as i said before, tried to play with 'realism' by showing life of a slum-kid; if you tell a story of slum-guy, you need to show him there, not sitting in a huge bungalow! And...90% of flicks are anyway would show life in a bungalow, then why do we get disturbed by this one 'minority' flick?!
Because, they have shown how effective good story-telling can be? Which we quite suck at? Slumdog for me is primarily a love story with the backdrop of KBC of a slum-kid. For many of the phirang critics (yup, phirangs can be pretentious and perhaps indulge in pity too)...it's a film about hope and that's what it is; you should read Roger Ebert's review on why he backs-up this film. And...it's told in Bollywood-style; it IS a homage to Bollywood as Loveleen Tandon, co-director also points out. Someone thought Anil Kapoor sucked, but watch him close and you shall see that his mannerisms are close to a bollywood (masala) villain, well...that over-the-top was all intentional!
Ray
As for Ray's Pather Panchali, well maybe the journalist is trying to be 'objective' by using that example, but again...it's a dangerous trend to put 'pather panchali' against the word 'poverty'. If Nargis was dumb, we can't do much about it. Pather Panchali is again a film about hope and how the family struggles and copes with the ups and downs of life, like any family, who maybe billionaires; he based it in a village (courtesy Bhibhutibhushan Bannerjee's novel) and it shines like very flicks do. Why? 'Cos it's seeped in realism and it's all about emotions.
So yeah, I find it corny when the 'intellectuals' walk that line. Sure, when we get used to watching the 'escapist' cinema, it gets hard to open our heads to other. In fact, I am truly grateful for the appreciation course we (Bhumika + Debo) took (under Ashok Rane Sir), wherein lot of folks would tell us something - you are the student of cinema, 'watch it for more' not like normal audience, and...it's tough for us too; am dead sure the normal audience would watch it for (sub-conscious) 'emotions', and that's how it should be, but it IS dangerous when you put such (poor!) thoughts in mind.
Journalism itself is so interesting (and dicey) in our land. I will never forget what someone had pointed out in a web article - the irony of the situation when Ray was given the lifetime oscar and was interviewed by none other than the giant of tv journalism, a guy i like too, Prannoy Roy (and I could recall that interview, which he did from his bed, as he was invalid...those were his last days) - Roy, in all his brilliance, and intellect asked him something like - what do you feel when the world considers Pather Panchali as a film depicting India's poverty?
Ray being sick, in very bad shape, was fragile like a child...but tried to explain his best what the film was about, he struggled since he couldn't speak coherently. It was one sad moment; the genius, on his death-bed was being made to justify a fantastic film & his cinema.
Why - because India's top journo also didn't 'get the film' and how he was being instrumental in creating a further screwed-up vision about the film and about the film-maker; Ray was being humiliated, he was being made to represent a cinema that highlighted India in poor light and because it was perceived that that's how the world appreciated his cinema.
In fact, from what I see, his films are kinda 'dead' in India and abroad too; normal audience will not be too excited to go, unless you really do excellent marketing. The people of cinema across the world who love his cinema, the 'students' and 'academicians', do so for the true value of his works. Btw, not only was he an awesome film-maker, but a terrific screenwriter; if you need to learn writing...you need to observe his screenwriting and check-out the 'economy'.
As for Pather Panchali it is basically, 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham' :-) That's what it is, of course, for my money (at least), you just can't compare the two, but then, yeah...the latter worked for the masses.
It's 'Fresh'
Slumdog may not work for you. But if you are in the position of being a 'student of cinema', step-back and try to evaluate the setting and the emotions, the theme and the tone the film is playing with. And try to see the elements at play - kbc, slum life, suspense, masala, the scenes on the train (definitely used as a motif), the transition from kids to adults et al.
Another thing, which makes the film very special - it's highly original. (Something we are told at school to try to be - originality really shines and captivates if you can make it play well.) Like Chak De was too and that's why it was special for many; who would have thought of making a film on hockey that too women, though....i did think it was a 'smart' move by YRF - you can show 11 or more girls in mini-skirts throughout the flick and the world would 'love' watching them :-) Of course, for the film to work, people need to relate to it and it had (interesting) characters which people fell in love with and like Slumdog...it was the story of an 'underdog'.
Would We Make Slumdog?
I wish the journalists would ask the question - why can't Indians make such flicks? As i was asking, Bhumika, which company in India would have backed this project? It was apparently made at $15 million and as of yesterday had earned $35 million, and after the Oscars, when it gets a re-release or a wider one, it should go over $100 million over the time. Not bad, huh.
Would the brightest brains of our production houses stepped back and said - hey, lets take this story by an Indian (!), and...let's get a foreign director and make an 'international' film and put 70 crores with no stars, no song-n-dance?! I mea, just looking at it from a purely money perspective?
Ghajini, India's BIG hit, touched 200 cr the other day; around $40 million, and would do more...but Slumdog with the awards et al...should get much stronger; so....doesn't it make sense to walk that line?! Who would have thought that? Why didn't we? Looking at the past record / content, perhaps only UTV would come near that 'frame'; guess Reliance (Big?) should start thinking too considering the stuff they own in USA.
By the way, from what I read and understand, the story happened due to one guy - Simon Beaufoy, the writer, who worked on it for 3 yrs and...also came to Bombay and would visit the slums. Now...who in right mind would do such a thing, right :-)
(so...writers and makers, if your setting is orginal, if the emotions are universal...'believe' in your story/stories! And maybe pitch to foreign firms ;-)
Marketing / Title
As for marketing, the title would be a bit of a hassle...sure. But...i strongly believe it's the (right) mindset (of marketers) that's the key. The key is pronounciation and it's not difficult ('Slumdog' has just two syllables.)
Of course, we had Aamir selling, 'Ghajini', but...what does that mean? I actually used to think that it was the name of the girl/heroine for a long time; since the PR et al would only be around Aamir and his lady-love! And then i discovered that it was the villain (and i didn't find him extra-ordinary); point is - audience across wouldn't have known anyway what n' who Ghajini was looking at the promotion; it's only Aamir and the dream-girl. Like, I am convinced, all of us love the sound of 'Sholay', not think about the 'angarey', fire or whatever!
The name, Slumdog Crorepati (not too user-friendly) could work I think with aggressive promotion; one master-stroke of the film that will help it relate to the masses is - using the KBC angle, but then...that IS the story. And as my uncle pointed out, it really helps in selling the film in USA and UK, as masses know the hit program - Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Lagaan is harder to relate to as they dont know cricket, but this works, and it's true, after-all the whole film revolves around the questions-answers of this program.
Commercial Element
My gut-feel says the film will not do as great commercially as its potential, which I believe it has. We would discount it on many a things and go easy. Anyway, let's see. It'd definitely go into the hall of fame if it picks up an Oscar or two, which would be fantastic considering that it's a film about India, story about an India guy and has only Indian actors.
It really shows what potential a good story has - and i say, forget the acclaim and awards (which is helping of course), just look at the money, as that's the reasoning India's big banners give when they scare away from such (dicey) content to indulge in 'entertaining' escapist cinema.
There IS some progress and again...UTV takes the lead by doing smaller-budget (interesting) flicks. But it seems too slow. For every Oye Lucky or a rare, Slumdog, you have a SRK or Akshay Kumar super-hit and those 'n' number of flicks who want to ape that success, and despite the 'original' making as fantastic returns, they keep sticking to same stuff.
I guess, it's really hard walking the other line. And the key - telling a good story, for which all our mythology background, dadi-maa story-telling culture, and producing the maximum flicks in the world...we remain weak at. Yup...it's all about 'poverty'.
Boy! Enough..
----------------------
Some POV's post the awards....
Juhu Slum Dwellers Prefer Ghajani.
Um, Slums.
Also --Title of the movie is very important --like the title " Slumdog Crorepati" is not very SINGLE SCREEN friendly ... the "SlumDog" bit....so its difficult to get Single screens barring a few...premium ones....
Slumdog and the Slums
I think this is a 'dangerous' trend, and also part of the Indian psyche - 'react before you see', and then exaggerate as we get charged-up since we are so 'sweetly sentimental', and then to be wary of foreign appreciation, which we may deem it as 'exploitative'.
At the end of the day, or the year, India produces more masala (so-called,escapist cinema) than realistic cinema; heck..realism is almost dead, except for very few flicks. India's biggest block-busters are all masalas. The YRF, Johar brand of cinema, the song-n-dance, typically show opulence , which is miles away from 'reality'. Does that work? Sure. If audience go for it, have a good time, then who are we to criticize that.
The thing is...even the masalas need to play with 'universal emotions'...they need to have some sort of a theme that connect with the audience, whether it's the character or the story...unless they execute well, it wont' work. But so is true of the 'realistic' films.
What I find funny is that Slumdog is being taken so 'seriously'; it is a very good masala flick, it's a 'smart' one and...as i said before, tried to play with 'realism' by showing life of a slum-kid; if you tell a story of slum-guy, you need to show him there, not sitting in a huge bungalow! And...90% of flicks are anyway would show life in a bungalow, then why do we get disturbed by this one 'minority' flick?!
Because, they have shown how effective good story-telling can be? Which we quite suck at? Slumdog for me is primarily a love story with the backdrop of KBC of a slum-kid. For many of the phirang critics (yup, phirangs can be pretentious and perhaps indulge in pity too)...it's a film about hope and that's what it is; you should read Roger Ebert's review on why he backs-up this film. And...it's told in Bollywood-style; it IS a homage to Bollywood as Loveleen Tandon, co-director also points out. Someone thought Anil Kapoor sucked, but watch him close and you shall see that his mannerisms are close to a bollywood (masala) villain, well...that over-the-top was all intentional!
Ray
As for Ray's Pather Panchali, well maybe the journalist is trying to be 'objective' by using that example, but again...it's a dangerous trend to put 'pather panchali' against the word 'poverty'. If Nargis was dumb, we can't do much about it. Pather Panchali is again a film about hope and how the family struggles and copes with the ups and downs of life, like any family, who maybe billionaires; he based it in a village (courtesy Bhibhutibhushan Bannerjee's novel) and it shines like very flicks do. Why? 'Cos it's seeped in realism and it's all about emotions.
So yeah, I find it corny when the 'intellectuals' walk that line. Sure, when we get used to watching the 'escapist' cinema, it gets hard to open our heads to other. In fact, I am truly grateful for the appreciation course we (Bhumika + Debo) took (under Ashok Rane Sir), wherein lot of folks would tell us something - you are the student of cinema, 'watch it for more' not like normal audience, and...it's tough for us too; am dead sure the normal audience would watch it for (sub-conscious) 'emotions', and that's how it should be, but it IS dangerous when you put such (poor!) thoughts in mind.
Journalism itself is so interesting (and dicey) in our land. I will never forget what someone had pointed out in a web article - the irony of the situation when Ray was given the lifetime oscar and was interviewed by none other than the giant of tv journalism, a guy i like too, Prannoy Roy (and I could recall that interview, which he did from his bed, as he was invalid...those were his last days) - Roy, in all his brilliance, and intellect asked him something like - what do you feel when the world considers Pather Panchali as a film depicting India's poverty?
Ray being sick, in very bad shape, was fragile like a child...but tried to explain his best what the film was about, he struggled since he couldn't speak coherently. It was one sad moment; the genius, on his death-bed was being made to justify a fantastic film & his cinema.
Why - because India's top journo also didn't 'get the film' and how he was being instrumental in creating a further screwed-up vision about the film and about the film-maker; Ray was being humiliated, he was being made to represent a cinema that highlighted India in poor light and because it was perceived that that's how the world appreciated his cinema.
In fact, from what I see, his films are kinda 'dead' in India and abroad too; normal audience will not be too excited to go, unless you really do excellent marketing. The people of cinema across the world who love his cinema, the 'students' and 'academicians', do so for the true value of his works. Btw, not only was he an awesome film-maker, but a terrific screenwriter; if you need to learn writing...you need to observe his screenwriting and check-out the 'economy'.
As for Pather Panchali it is basically, 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham' :-) That's what it is, of course, for my money (at least), you just can't compare the two, but then, yeah...the latter worked for the masses.
It's 'Fresh'
Slumdog may not work for you. But if you are in the position of being a 'student of cinema', step-back and try to evaluate the setting and the emotions, the theme and the tone the film is playing with. And try to see the elements at play - kbc, slum life, suspense, masala, the scenes on the train (definitely used as a motif), the transition from kids to adults et al.
Another thing, which makes the film very special - it's highly original. (Something we are told at school to try to be - originality really shines and captivates if you can make it play well.) Like Chak De was too and that's why it was special for many; who would have thought of making a film on hockey that too women, though....i did think it was a 'smart' move by YRF - you can show 11 or more girls in mini-skirts throughout the flick and the world would 'love' watching them :-) Of course, for the film to work, people need to relate to it and it had (interesting) characters which people fell in love with and like Slumdog...it was the story of an 'underdog'.
Would We Make Slumdog?
I wish the journalists would ask the question - why can't Indians make such flicks? As i was asking, Bhumika, which company in India would have backed this project? It was apparently made at $15 million and as of yesterday had earned $35 million, and after the Oscars, when it gets a re-release or a wider one, it should go over $100 million over the time. Not bad, huh.
Would the brightest brains of our production houses stepped back and said - hey, lets take this story by an Indian (!), and...let's get a foreign director and make an 'international' film and put 70 crores with no stars, no song-n-dance?! I mea, just looking at it from a purely money perspective?
Ghajini, India's BIG hit, touched 200 cr the other day; around $40 million, and would do more...but Slumdog with the awards et al...should get much stronger; so....doesn't it make sense to walk that line?! Who would have thought that? Why didn't we? Looking at the past record / content, perhaps only UTV would come near that 'frame'; guess Reliance (Big?) should start thinking too considering the stuff they own in USA.
By the way, from what I read and understand, the story happened due to one guy - Simon Beaufoy, the writer, who worked on it for 3 yrs and...also came to Bombay and would visit the slums. Now...who in right mind would do such a thing, right :-)
(so...writers and makers, if your setting is orginal, if the emotions are universal...'believe' in your story/stories! And maybe pitch to foreign firms ;-)
Marketing / Title
As for marketing, the title would be a bit of a hassle...sure. But...i strongly believe it's the (right) mindset (of marketers) that's the key. The key is pronounciation and it's not difficult ('Slumdog' has just two syllables.)
Of course, we had Aamir selling, 'Ghajini', but...what does that mean? I actually used to think that it was the name of the girl/heroine for a long time; since the PR et al would only be around Aamir and his lady-love! And then i discovered that it was the villain (and i didn't find him extra-ordinary); point is - audience across wouldn't have known anyway what n' who Ghajini was looking at the promotion; it's only Aamir and the dream-girl. Like, I am convinced, all of us love the sound of 'Sholay', not think about the 'angarey', fire or whatever!
The name, Slumdog Crorepati (not too user-friendly) could work I think with aggressive promotion; one master-stroke of the film that will help it relate to the masses is - using the KBC angle, but then...that IS the story. And as my uncle pointed out, it really helps in selling the film in USA and UK, as masses know the hit program - Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Lagaan is harder to relate to as they dont know cricket, but this works, and it's true, after-all the whole film revolves around the questions-answers of this program.
Commercial Element
My gut-feel says the film will not do as great commercially as its potential, which I believe it has. We would discount it on many a things and go easy. Anyway, let's see. It'd definitely go into the hall of fame if it picks up an Oscar or two, which would be fantastic considering that it's a film about India, story about an India guy and has only Indian actors.
It really shows what potential a good story has - and i say, forget the acclaim and awards (which is helping of course), just look at the money, as that's the reasoning India's big banners give when they scare away from such (dicey) content to indulge in 'entertaining' escapist cinema.
There IS some progress and again...UTV takes the lead by doing smaller-budget (interesting) flicks. But it seems too slow. For every Oye Lucky or a rare, Slumdog, you have a SRK or Akshay Kumar super-hit and those 'n' number of flicks who want to ape that success, and despite the 'original' making as fantastic returns, they keep sticking to same stuff.
I guess, it's really hard walking the other line. And the key - telling a good story, for which all our mythology background, dadi-maa story-telling culture, and producing the maximum flicks in the world...we remain weak at. Yup...it's all about 'poverty'.
Boy! Enough..
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Viewed: MAN ON WIRE
This is one flick I would recommend not 'Must-Watch', but 'Must-Buy', or...'Must-Download'! If you want to see how Documentaries can be gripping and entertaining, as much any solid fiction, don't miss out on this film.
It's about a Frenchman, Phillipe Petit, who was a street juggler and a tightrope walker; he started doing walks (on wire) across various buildings and monuments. And then...he decided that he would walk across the WTC Twin Towers above 100 floors. The film is about the man's passion, his past and his perseverance to attempt this (insane) adventure.
Check it out:
http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/manonwire
http://www.mininova.org/tor/2068046
Rating ****
[Max ****]
It's about a Frenchman, Phillipe Petit, who was a street juggler and a tightrope walker; he started doing walks (on wire) across various buildings and monuments. And then...he decided that he would walk across the WTC Twin Towers above 100 floors. The film is about the man's passion, his past and his perseverance to attempt this (insane) adventure.
Check it out:
http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/manonwire
http://www.mininova.org/tor/2068046
Rating ****
[Max ****]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)