Om Shanti Om - Truly a Masterpiece

Om Shanti Om (aka OSO) is a revealation. I expected a completely over-the-top albeit entertaining Bollywood Masala movie. It is all of that but much more too. I expected to be entertained but did not expect it to hold my interest as it did till the very end. I had truly underestimated the capability of Farah Khan (the director) and the magic of SRK (aka Shah Rukh Khan aka King Khan). The first half of the film has SRK playing a junior artiste and dreaming of becoming a star. But that is not his only dream. He also dreams of Shantipriya (Deepika Padukone), the superstar of that era(the 70s). Only SRK can portray the role of the intense lover with just that right dash of mushiness and intensity. I think the secret of SRK's success lies in the fact that his portrayal can send a chill (and thrill) down the spine of almost all women between the age of 15-50 and beyond. The film pokes good natured fun at the film industry, takes digs at the star power of surnames, parodies the mannerisms of stars -- all this without resorting to offensive jokes or vulgarity. The highlight of the first half though is SRK impersonating a South Indian movie star (presumably Rajnikant) to impress Shantipriya. Whether spouting gibberish or fighting a toy tiger or doing the sun glass flip of Rajnikant or saying "enna rascala Mind it" after every few minutes -- SRK is a riot!

As everyone knows by now, the story is of reincarnation ala Karz. So we have SRK and Deepika dying in the first half. The second half has SRK reincarnated as a super brat son of a famous star. The laughs continue with SRK playing roles such as Mohabbat Man and stars in "Apahij Pyar" as the lover who can't see, hear, speak, doesn't have hands or legs. But the second half is also when things start getting serious. SRK meets Mukesh Mehra, the psychopathic producer, superbly played by Arjun Rampal. He regains his past life memory and starts plotting revenge.

Farah has shown a deftness in directing that is commendable. There is overacting and melodrama where it works and exactly the opposite where it doesn't. So while Kiron Kher is the filmy mom, Rampal is chillingly understated. A word for the new actress, Deepika Padukone. She is excellent...beautiful, poised, vulnerable, and dignified. This is a definite must watch for all Bollywood lovers. It is not cerebral in any way but an excellent spoof on the industry.

Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag - A Journey of a Woman

I have always loved Manna Dey's rendition of "Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag" in the movie, Dil hi to hai. The title track of Pradeep Sarkar's directorial venture, "Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag" has Shubha Mudgal crooning the song, interspersed with Mita Vashisht's poetry, "Manva mein mere toofan uthe madmast khadi hoon main". The choreography of the song is the high point of the movie.

How many times have we come across the same plot in Hindi movies: poor village girl coming to big city, not finding any work, getting hounded by big city wolves, resorting to prostitution? And Pradeep Sarkar chooses the same plotline albeit some modern touches. The usual kotha is replaced by fancy hotels and high rise buildings. Rani Mukherjee becomes a high class call girl, hob nobbing with the rich and the famous. Till Rani's transformation into a call girl the movie is quite watchable. But then it goes downhill. In his zeal to be politically correct, Sarkar has gone overboard trying to show the characters as modern and broadminded. Abhishek and Konkona as the love interest and the younger sister respectively have very little depth. The fun part of the movie is the chemistry between Kunal Kapoor and Konkona. The only believable character was Jaya Bacchan as Rani's mother.

Pradeep Sarkar had a brilliant cast but he chose to play it safe. This is film that could have been one of the landmarks of great cinema but ended up as a confused venture....neither hardhitting enough to appeal to the intelligentsia (or the arty type) nor commercial enough to appeal to the masses.

Khoda pahad nikla chuha: Johnny Gaddar

Thrillers and Hindi cinema are not a match made in heaven. Most of them are pathetic (that is not to say Indian cinema has not produced good thrillers...for reference watch Satyajit Ray's Sonar Kella or even the Byomkesh Bakshi series on TV). That's why I was completely hooked after watching Sriram Raghavan's earlier film, Ek Hasina Thi. It was an out and out thriller with an awesome ending. It had set a precedent for me in terms of genre. When I heard that Johnny Gaddar was Raghavan's film, I was scared. The track record of Indian directors when it came to sustaining the high of a first film wasn't great (think Ram Gopal Verma's Rangeela and then his latter films).

However, the film started with great promise. The atmosphere was perfectly set: pouring rain, a man opening a garage door, a gloved hand holding a gun and boom....blood everywhere. The film then begins in the form of flashback. Five business associates, Sheshadri (Dharmendra), Prakash (Vinay Pathak), Shardul (Zakir Hussain), Shiva (Daya Shetty) and Vikram (Neil Nitin Mukesh) plan a business deal to make a fast buck. Vikram decides to double cross the gang and run off with the money. His reason though is not purely mercenery. He wants to elope with Shardul's wife, Mini (Rimi Sen). An accident leads to murder and the chase to find the betrayer begins in earnest.

While the identity of the "gaddar" is no mystery, one somehow cannot believe that things are that simple. My friends and I kept trying to guess the real identity of the "gaddar". But as it turned out, there was no other "gaddar". It left me with a curiously unsatisfied feeling. "Khoda pahar nikla chuha". That's an apt epitah for the movie and that was also the reason why I was curiously uninspired to write a review of the film although I did enjoy it. However, the movie had its moments. The way the "gaddar's" identity is revealed to the last surviving gang member is a brilliant touch. That one scene shows that the director respects his viewers.

A word for the new comer, Neil Nitin Mukesh (he is Mukesh's grandson). He is a treat to watch. Although he doesn't revel in blood and gore, he kills without a qualm. For him, its just a logical step that he needs to take if he wants to succeed in running away with his lover. Each actor is good in his respective role although the only weak one is Rimi Sen. She doesn't really add much to the role and plays the stereotype of a damsel in distress on expected lines. Rasika Joshi as Pathak's wife is commendable.

Chak De India!

Chak de India has convinced me that there is goodness in every person (or every production house). A film from the Yash Raj stable which (gasp!) unabashedly promotes women's empowerment, has no frothy romance and no hamming from SRK aka Shah Rukh Khan. Seems almost too good to be true, doesn't it, but Chak de India has it all and more. While the plot of the underdog team fighting all odds to win the big match is as hackneyed as they come in Hollywood, this is a first of its kind in India. There was of course Lagaan but that had a different sub-theme to it with the requisite star cast, songs, romance etc. Chak de just concentrates on hockey, a game which has been given the short shrift in India although we used to be good at it. It touches upon many contemporary issues: branding someone a traitor on circumstantial evidence just because he's a Muslim; treating women in sports with complete contempt; sexual harrassment; regionalism and parochialism. All of this makes Chak de sound like a preachy art movie but amazingly enough it is not. It is an exuberant movie which celebrates women. There are no preachy sermons about wifely dharma when Vidya Sharma (the team captain) is forced to choose her game over her husband's unjust demands nor does it brand Bindiya Naik (the most experienced player) as the vamp when she offers to sleep with the coach in exchange of retaining her captain's cap. Kabir Khan (the coach) turns her down gently but firmly without any excess melodrama and when he asks her help in winning a crucial match she gives her best. A special mention for Preeti Sabharwal, the girl who rejects her cricketer boyfriend's marriage offer because of his chauvinistic attitude and complete contempt toward the game. Though she is yet to evolve as a good actress, she did handle her role quite competently. However, the trio who steal your heart are Komal Chautala (Haryana), Balbir Kaur (Punjab) with their rough accents and Suimui (Jharkhand), the tribal girl who can't speak a word of English or Hindi but excels at the game.

However, the movie pivots around SRK. He holds your attention with his understated acting and his passion for the game. I think this might actually be one of his best efforts. Instead of romancing some chiffon clad heroine he excels as the tough, no-nonsense coach whose only goal is to lick the rag tag women's hockey team into shape so that he can blot out the ugly tag of "traitor". The music is hummable but nothing spectacular. It however gels well with the overall theme of the movie.

PRS goes to Parliament

PRS organised a guided tour to the Parliament on August 1, 2007 for the core team, summer interns and the new MP interns. Although I have gone to the Parliament thrice before (twice to watch the Question Hour and once to meet a CP(I)M comrade), this was different. We had a guide who took us to both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha gallery as well as the chamber where joint sessions of Parliament are held. We learnt a whole lot of new things. First, the upholstery in the Lok Sabha is green because the MPs are elected by the public ie the grassroot! However, the guide had no suitable explanation of why the same was red in the Rajya Sabha (sign of royalty, maybe). The most interesting was the chamber where the joint session of Parliament takes place. It has the second highest dome (next only to the dome in Bijapur). Also, there are standing fans, which look like inverted windmills placed all over the room. Looks very high tech and slightly surreal. There were also pictures of all former Prime Ministers and other important leaders of the independence movement. Chakshu's excitement at Netaji's portrait got noticed and he (or was it Madhavan) got asked whether he was the "sanyal" on the list...the bong connection:) We then adjourned to Congress MP J P Aggarwal's office to partake of tea, sandwiches and biscuits.

Potternama

The Potter bug is a bug like no other. Once bitten you remain smitten! There are also those who steadfastly maintain that there is no fate worse than being bitten by the Potter bug. You are either doomed to eternal infantilism (this is from the intellectual types who criticise the books as being childish, lacking in imagination and worst of all mediocre English) or to eternal damnation (this is from the religious right wingers who accuse Rowling of encouraging sorcery and other pagan rituals). Therefore, the question remains: Is Harry Potter’s popularity a figment of marketing gimmicks only or is there an engaging yarn hidden behind the hype?

I got introduced to Harry through a friend after I borrowed the first book (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone) from her. I turned the first few pages and I fell in love. Although the intensity of that love has mellowed with time (especially after the first three books) it remains strong enough for me to care about what happens to Harry and his pals and also his enemies (what IS Snape’s story?). Harry’s life at Hogwarts is like a kid’s (and many adults who remain kids at heart) day dream come true! There’s action, adventure and fun mixed with just the right dash of personal problems to make life interesting. Harry is likable precisely because he is neither brilliant nor too holier than thou. For me, Harry also resonated a bit on the personal level since to some extent I am also a loner and never really fit in a crowd (unfortunately, for reasons that lie in my shortcomings than anything as exciting as Harry’s life).

Rowling of course has profited enormously from the series, becoming one of the richest women in the world. Her royalties add up to £365m while merchandising and film income take Rowling to £450m. The hype that surrounds each release of is nothing short of phenomenal. The marketing machinery leaves no stone unturned while targeting Harry’s fan base -- from midnight bookstore openings, trivia contests, costume contests, magic shows, essay contests in which the winner gets a trip to Harry’s homeland to ensuring that the books reach the fans on time. The buzz starts months before the book is released and as the D-Day nears fans work themselves up in frenzy.

While the gimmickry cannot be denied, could a book retain the interest of that many people (especially attention deficit children) if the books themselves did not have something worthwhile? This point has been debated threadbare by a large number of critics and fans. Critics contend that the books have very little literary merit in themselves. The stories are a clever patchwork of derivative clichés from a variety of children’s fiction -- science fiction, boarding school stories, Enid Blyton mysteries, and above all the universal appeal of good and evil. However, it does not answer the question why adults are equally fascinated by the books. According to A.S. Byatt, a well known novelist, adults read these books for comfort. While she finds redeeming qualities in books of other science fictions writers such Philip Pullman, Ursula Le Guin, Susan Cooper or Alan Garner, she condemns Rowling’s books as devoid of such merit. She calls it the substitution of heroism with celebrity and the levelling effect of cultural studies which has led to comparing the Brontës with bodice-rippers.

I agree with parts of Byatt’s criticism. Harry Potter is obviously not great literature. But I do not agree that the books lack imagination. While some may say it is not as imaginative as Ursula Le Guin or JRR Tolkien, I think it takes some talent to create a parallel world which is similar enough that one can feel at home in it and at the same time be as fascinatingly different from our “muggle” world as possible. If you can show me one person who would not like to be part of an universe where owls deliver letters or port keys can be used for long distance travel or talking hats sort you into the right house, where magic wands can produce beautiful petronases to ward off dementors or kill with the aveda kadevera curse – I would be ready to eat one of Bot’s magical sweets that taste like vomit or ear wax!

My problem with Rowling is not with the breadth of her imagination, I think she has plenty. I also don’t worry about why adults are not reading enough of Le Guin and too much of Rowling. Yes, Le Guin is excellent no doubt but she lacks a sense of fun, as does Pullman’s Dark Material trilogy. Except for Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), who has the most amazing sense of humour and imagination, and to some extent Terry Pratchet there are few science fiction (SF) authors (or ones that I have read) who have written books where people crack jokes or have a have a whacky sense of humour or where the characters do not seem so burdened by the weighty task of saving the world from evil forces! I also do not subscribe to the idea that adults who read Harry Potter are regressing into infantilism. Every SF book in one way or the other is infantile. The stories do not just have imaginary people but completely imaginary worlds too. That’s as infantile as you can get. I would say SF does exactly what a child fantasizes. Whether it is to fight cosmic battles or to fight in a school “quidditch” match is a matter of semantics. For that matter, not just SF, every fiction is a product of the imagination of the author. They are about as unreal as you can get. So why not classify reading of any fiction as infantile or childish?

My problem with Harry Potter is slightly different. On the face of it, Rowling not only tries to uphold values such as honesty, courage, ability to stand for what is right, she also makes a strong statement against racism. Among the four houses of Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the Slytherin house with its preference for pure blooded witches and wizards is singled out as the villain. In the wizard world, pure blood does not equate with skin colour; it means that witches and wizards born of parents who are both wizards rather than “mud bloods” who are born of non-wizard parents. But that is about all the social commentary she makes though she does throw in some bits about acceptance of all magical creatures as equals and of the value of free-will. Where she falters is her caricature of women. The only strong female student is Hermione, who is a swot and has to win Harry and Ron’s approval by breaking rules. She does not seem to have any other female friends, in fact there does not seem to be female students of importance in Hogwarts. Among the professors, only Prof Mc Gonaggall is a strong female character although she defers to the superior wisdom of Prof Dumbledore, the headmaster. Prof Trelawney teaches prophecies and is a complete kook and a fraud. Only one of her predictions has come true in her entire life. And the only two students who cannot see through her fake prophecies are the Indian girls, Padma and Parvati Patel. Is there a particular reason Rowling made such a characterisation or am I just reading too much into it? But it seems to me a perpetuation of the stereotype of India being a land of astrologers, snake charmers and magic carpets!!

Also, all her key characters are white (there’s no ambiguity in that as physical features of all key characters are outlined). Since it’s a SF, she could have easily peopled her make believe world of witches and wizards with much more “colourful” people. Was she scared that too much multiculturalism would not appeal to her audience? The celebration of Christmas but of no other festival is also a dead giveaway that she is willing to go only that far in her effort to be inclusive.

While all these points do not deter the books from being highly entertaining, they do deter them from meaningfully challenging stereotypical notions of race, colour and ethnicity. Rowling’s imagination is good enough to have conjured an interesting parallel magical world. However, her marketing instincts (I would blame that since imagination does not seem to be the problem) stopped her from exploiting the true potential of her book. Instead of offering groundbreaking social commentary on many of our contemporary problems, these books remain at the level of children’s fiction enjoyed by adults for a rollicking ride without making us sit up and think!