Lipstick Under My Burkha

Sensible movies are rare. Sensible movies which are well made are rarer.

As I watch the women's cricket world-cup final,  I realize it is every bit as exciting as the men's world cup final. The skill and the attitude are as you expect at the topmost level. Yet many members of this Indian team hail from small towns like Sangli and Chikmagalur. Is small town India changing in it's attitude towards women?

Lipstick Under My Burkha is a story of four women set in Bhopal. Not a small town but not a city either. The direction is smooth and the acting sharp. But what is it about? What is it trying to say? What is the message?

I would like to steer clear of these questions. Or at least I will steer clear of discussing them. I believe they are meant for introspection and not debate. That was the feeling I got through-out the movie. It just shows us four lives. It stops just few inches short of a reaction. We wait for the characters to react, to fight back, to give us some catharsis. But it never comes. Perhaps it is not supposed to come in the movie hall but outside it, in the real world. Where we direct our own plays and act in it.

This movie will not generate a lot of chatter. Perhaps won't do well at the box office either. But it succeeds in making the audience uncomfortable. And that is value for my money right there.

Lessons from Sairat (सैराट)

Having seen Nagraj Manjule's first short film Pistulya (Review here) and his first movie Fandry, it was obvious that Sairat will leave you shaken. And that it sure did.

Not because it told us something new. It does not have anything that you will not find in a newspaper every other day. But it managed to make it real for you in those three hours. It somehow takes a small newspaper article about something which happened in an unheard-of village and makes it a part of your life, your experience. That is the hallmark of brilliant cinema.

"लई इगो हाय तुला"

Everyone views great art through their prism, mine is this. Sairat is about the ego. The more successful and powerful you become the more it grows within you. The only person who can keep it in check for you is the person you love. If that person is strong enough to fight with you and make you fight with your own ego then you are saved. Otherwise it will end up eating you and everyone around you.

"Your mother is a quiet women, she makes me listen to my own voice. And it is a voice I do not like much lately." - Trumbo

This ability to be the conscience of someone else is hardly ever respected or praised. But it is a rare gift. I am not saying that you cannot be your own watchman. That you always need someone else you point out your failings. Most people manage to play both roles. But it is particularly hard for people who are most focused and driven. They, almost by definition, do not have any room for a contrarian viewpoint. And a balancing act is most important for such men and women, because they are the ones who are capable of most damage.

Also, if your long lost relatives - with whom you had a great fight the last time you saw them - happen to suddenly show up on your doorstep and are looking grim and silent, smell a rat and get the hell out of there.

Arrogant Geniuses

What has arrogance to do with genius? Nothing really. At least not in real life. But somehow onscreen they seem to be inseparable.

Arrogance we are taught is a bad thing. Good people are humble. So obviously we get attracted to arrogance like smoking of that first joint or getting wasted in defiance of our preachy family and friends. When Mark ridicules a girl in the 'The Social Network' because he can think faster than her (and perhaps speak faster than he can think), we love it as an audience. When Steve abuses a programmer for not thinking as big as he does in 'Jobs' we join in in the abuse and marvel at the grand ideas that the hero is capable of. When Alan in 'The Imitation Game' fires a few guys unceremoniously, guys who have toiled at the problem as much as he has, the whole theater erupts in laughter. I wonder what I will feel if my boss fires me for having a low IQ and the whole office laughs their heart out pointing at me.

Obviously we are not putting ourselves in the shoes of the people getting put down. We think of ourselves as the conquering hero. We get to be a brilliant scientist revolutionizing science itself. Or a passionate entrepreneur who changes the way people go about their very lives. When the canvas is so large a little fun at the expense of a dumb-witted guy is OK. Is needed in fact. To prove the authenticity of the intellect in question.

I'm a woman in a man's job. I don't have the luxury of being an ass - Joan Clarke in 'The Imitation Game'

Is it indeed a luxury? Would a genius look less of a genius if she is always pleasant and nice to people? If he is not socially awkward? I wonder how a Albert Einstein or a Swami Vivekananda will be portrayed on screen? They were undoubtedly few of the greatest minds the world has ever seen. But it is hard to imagine them as arrogant. Of course I am not saying that Alan Turing, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg were or are asses. They might be sugar for all I know. But Directors choosing to show them as crazed go-getters and we loving them for it, tells us something about ourselves.

Do you know why people like violence? It is because it feels good. Humans find violence deeply satisfying. But remove the satisfaction, and the act becomes... hollow. - Alan Turing in 'The Imitation Game'

I have had opportunity of really hurting people with words. And I have let my tongue loose on many a occasion. I have been on the wrong side of the deal often times too. That crushing feeling when you are smaller than the smallest object in sight. And I have realized that truly smart, really wise people don't do that. They just can't. In fact, it is so true that it can be a test to understand someone with. I think we have mistaken style for wisdom. And bling for style.

Any fool can know. The point is to understand. - Albert Einstein

If I become a genius I would like to be shown like Phalke in 'Harishchandrachi Factory'. A brilliant inventor and artist who is many times funny and always likable. Even in the worst of times he is never crass.

And yes, I believe genius is a matter of becoming. Not being.

[Pictures courtesy - news.com.au, macrumors.com, switchtheshift.wordpress.com, thegardian.com, trishagupta.blogspot.com]  

Gone Girl

It was refreshing to see such a negative take on marriage. We always joke about how marriage makes you loose your freedom and how you have to sacrifice on all kinds of shit. But it is always accompanied by something that compensates it. Love, sex, kids, security, just the company. This movie was devoid of any positive side. It was what the idea of marriage can become if taken to the extreme. And it is a rather unnatural idea when you think about it.

Given a choice nobody will marry an ugly person. It might be an insensitive statement to make, but is it not true? So what would you expect to happen to a relation which is based on physical attraction to begin with? It will be as fickle as the attraction which started it. But we fight with it day in and day out. To add some substance to it. Kids are of course a game changer. But what of a long and successful marriage without kids? In the end what will become of the two people involved in it? When none of them is attractive anymore.

Actually the end is easy. It is the middle years when all the infidelity and such-likes happens. When both think they deserve better. It is like marriage is designed to ruin you. But somehow, by a stroke of luck, you might be saved. The more successful and genuinely happy marriages that I have seen look more like any other friendship rather than the added baggage that is part of the marriage bandwagon.

But like any other hard, near impossible thing (like rock climbing, deep sea diving, cliff jumping) marriage, if done right, can forge character. Of course it might be a tad difficult if the spouse is a psychopath. But in most cases they are not. What remains is letting go of your ego and being kind. Ah, but what seems clear in writing, is hazy in doing. What seems like an obvious thing in principle, is always the hardest thing in practice.

अस्तु - So be it

Will I be the same person without my memories? Will the people who love me now continue to love me even if I treat them as strangers? Never recognizing or acknowledging their existence. Most relationships are give and take. If the take stops, how long before the give gets diverted in other, more fulfilling directions.

The strong point of this movie, for me, is the superb acting by the whole cast. Mohan Agashe, as the sanskrit scholar losing his memory to dementia is as masterly as ever. Iravti Harshe, as the elder daughter struggling with her father's illness and the expectations of her young children has given an intense performance. Nachiket Purnapatre and Amruta Subhash have played their parts to perfection.

 

The theme might be the illness. But in typical Sumitra Bhave - Sunil Sukhtankar style, the movie touches a lot of emotions, dilemmas and paradoxes which are part of our ordinary lives. I was troubled by one particular shade. The elder sister Ira (Iravati Harshe) comes out as maternal and caring kind of a person. She refuses to keep her father in an old age home in spite of the mounting difficulties and tensions resulting from his erratic and at times violent behavior. This obviously is taking a toll on her. The younger sister Rahi (Devika Daftardar) is of an altogether different nature. Clear, frank, without attachments and rational to the core. She casually suggests that their father is no longer their father and it is OK to let him spend the rest of his days in an institution. After all, he won't even know the difference!

This, to me, felt like a very easy but unfair classification. One sister full of empathy and care, the other equipped with cold hard reason. Why can a rational person not be empathetic? Why was these to traits always portrayed as opposites? Are they really, or is it just a lazy typecasting done to avoid confusion. What category would you put a person who has both? Because there has to be a category, oh yes. During an emotional outburst Ira mentions that the whole Bhagwat Geeta happened because of Arjun's रुजुता. His empathy. But that was not his weakness. It was his strength, to be able to be someone else. To think from their perspective. Perhaps Arjun was both kind and reasonable. After all, he agreed to, and did what need done. Didn't he?

The movie is about losing context. All our lives we collect memories and build context. People recognize and relate to us by that shared knowledge. But perhaps, while these nitigrities are being worked on, there is something else building up in the deep. Perhaps that can be called the real you. Which exists without context. As Chanamma (Amruta Subhas) says in the end 'देव झालाय त्याचं. सगळं सारखच दिसतकी हो त्यांना'

That said, the movie was not without goof ups and inadvertently funny stuff. Ira listening to their father sing O Rahi O Rahi and thinking he loves her sibling (Rahi) more than herself. Or Ira asking her husband to shut up in the middle of a serious conversation making Milind Soman so awkward that he ends up giving a random clueless expression. But the worst was product placement. I understand that marathi movies, especially such serious and sensitive types do not mint money. They might not be breaking even either. But putting ads in scenes just puts me off. I feel a bit cheated. I am referring to the scene where Ira stops for shopping keeping her father in the car. For a whole 3-4 seconds there is an advertisement board clearly shown past her window. They took great pains to avoid the चितळे and just showed बंधू मिठाईवाले in a previous scene. So I do not think it was unintentional. Or perhaps Chilate did not give them discount on the bakarwadis so they orchestrated sweet revenge.

आजचा दिवस माझा

Most of the times we blame our Government. Sometimes we praise it. But almost never do we care to understand it. This movie provides an interesting insight into the functioning of the Chief Minister's office and the bureaucracy under it.

An organization moves in the resultant direction and speed of all its employees. Sometimes that means no movement at all when everyone is trying to force a different direction. But when these motions align, you can see a slumbering elephant suddenly transformed into a galloping stallion. This movie depicts such a day (or should I say night) when the stars aligned. Can the will of one man, even if he is the top office bearer in the State, cause such a transformation? Perhaps. But it is not easy.

There have been enough movies that have romanticized politics (like Nayak and the idiotically stupid Ranjhanna). But Chandrakant Kulkarni has managed to keep this movie well grounded. Sachin Khededar as CM Vishwasrao Mohite has given a powerhouse performance. He has never gone overboard and maintained perfect composure. He has been able to show the cunning politician as well as the kind-hearted leader with equal finesse. Since his character is what causes the whole plot in the first place, it was quiet critical that it was done right. And it has been. 

Mahesh Manjrekar has given a subdued but decent performance as a senior IAS officer. The feeling of superiority (we basically run this nation), the arrogance towards subordinates, the reluctant and false respect for superiors and the overall culture of mutual gain is brought out nicely through his character. Though in the end, when his daughter refuses to marry a 'boring' new IAS recruit, he realizes that he does not posses real power. And we realize that when it is time to do something good, such types are of no use.

But the best part for me was played out by Hrishikesh Joshi as the CMs private secretory. There is a phone call where he explains to his kid, who has just passed with flying colors, why he cannot come home till the job is done. That alone made it worth the while.

Now for the criticisms. First and foremost, the titles were horrible. A kid in 10th grade can come up with better graphics now-a-days. There was no creativity and no effort in it. It just puts you off right at the beginning (I was on a flight with nothing better to do so I carried on).

Second is the comedy. I am sick and tired of comedy in Marathi movies now. It is the same kind of physical, screaming and retake genre which the likes of Ashok Saraf, Lakshya and Sudhir Joshi had pioneered. Yes it was fun and they were good at it. But it is time to move on now. We need to find some real humor. Frankly, this movie would have been much better without all its comedy sequences. Also without scenes which were designed to bring out a particular message. Most of the time they feel childish. The expression should flow effortlessly from the conversation. If it does not then let it be. There is no point in engineering the dialog to achieve the desired result.

The third criticism is about plot itself. It is based on the allotment of flats to renowned artists from a quota. This is a legacy of the times when we were ruled by Kings who used to provide Rajashrya. It does not make sense in a democracy. And it is the exact type of arbitrary patronage that leads to corruption and dysfunctional use of government resources.

One of the final scenes has a somewhat direct confrontation between the CM and his IAS officer. It plays out well. The elected representatives should decide the priorities. What is important and what needs to be done now. The officers need to execute on those priorities in accordance with proper procedure. Khedekar quotes the late Maharashtra CM Yashwantrao Chavan's words that the ministers need to say 'No' more often and the bureaucrats need to say 'Yes' more often.

Given the current political climate there are bound to be a lot more movies with similar theme. But most will be hero worship style and would miss the point of being in governance completely.

[Photos courtesy: hdmovies-4u.blogspot.com indiannerve.com marathistars.com movies.buzzintown.com]

पोस्टकार्ड

पत्र पाउसाच्या थेंबासारखं असतं. ते कुठलीना कुठलीतरी भावना रुजवतच.

म अशी पत्र रोज निर्व्याजपणे पोचवणारा पोस्टमन कधीतरी त्या शब्दांमध्ये हरवत असेल का? गजेंद्र अहिर्यांचा पोस्टकार्ड हा चित्रपट मला फार आवडला आणि त्याचा खूप कंटाळा पण आला. हे परस्पर विरोधी नाहीये. दोन तास हा मोठा कालावधी आहे. त्यात असंख्य वेळा तुमचे विचार आणि भावना बदलतात. चित्रपट बघून बाहेर पडताना, कसा वाटला? ह्या प्रश्णाचं उत्तर दुसरं कोणी नाही विचारलं तरी आपण स्वताचं स्वताला देतोच. ते कदाचित ह्या सगळ्या भावनांची बेरीज केल्या सारखं असावं. मला इथे बेरीज करायची नाहीये.

तीन गावं. तिथले तीन पत्ते (पत्ती नाही!). तिथे आपली आयुष्य मांडून बसलेली तीन माणसं. आपल्या सर्वात जवळच्या माणसापासून दूर गेलेली. वर्षानुवर्षं वाट बघत आणि भेटीची आस जागी ठेवत काढलेली. आणि ती भेट झालीच नाही तर? काय होत असेल? मरणानी तरी सुटका होते अश्यांची? का ती शेवटची झोप पण नीट लागणार नाही? आणि ह्या सगळ्या अतृप्त इच्छांमधून संथ गतीने वाट काढत चाललेला पोस्टमन. ज्याचा खर तर ह्या पात्रांची काहीच संबंध नाही. पण तरी त्यांच्या आर्त हाकेमुले खेचत गेलेला. 

सगळ्याच कथा मला भावल्या. डोळ्यात पाणी आणणाऱ्या होत्या. सई ताम्हणकरनी सहज आणि अतिशय उत्कृष्ठ अभिनय केलाय. "कष्ट करणाऱ्या म्हाताऱ्या माणसाची देवावरची श्रद्धा उडायला नको" ह्या तिच्या वाक्याला डोळ्यातले पाणी बाहेर येऊ का विचारत होते (मी त्याला गप बस म्हणालो). राधिका आपटे अप्रतिम कलाकार आहेच. ह्या चित्रपटात पण तिचं काम सुंदर झालं आहे. चित्रपट जसा पुढे पुढे जातो तसं त्याला नुसतं भावनिक सोडून गूढतेचं वळण मिळायला लागतं. नाव सांगणं टाळता जी. ए. च्या कुठल्याश्या कथेचा उल्लेख होतो (त्यावर आधारित असावी?). भारावून टाकणारं संगीत आणि हरिहरन, कविता कृष्णमुर्ती ह्यांचे आवाज. Cinematography तर सध्याच्या मराठी चित्रपटांची कमालच असते. म्हणून त्या विषयी बोलायलाच नको. Technically काही आवडलं नसेल तर वैभव मांगले ह्यांचे पात्र (उगीच एकांगी केलेले) आणि सुबोध भावे ह्यांची वाकडी टोपी (काहीही काय?).

मला कंटाळा आला तो परिस्थिती पुढे हताश झालेल्या मराठी माणसाचा. आणि बहुतेक वेळा परिस्थिती म्हणजे हवे तितके पैसे नसणे. म त्यासाठी त्याग, रडारड, दुःख्. एखादी गोष्ट आपल्याला मिळणं शक्य नाही हे समजून पुढे न जाता येण फारच क्लेषदाई असणार. मला कल्पना आहे की माझ्या सारखं सुखासीन आयुष्य जगणार्याला हे म्हणणं सोपं आहे. हुशार माणूस आपल्या इच्छा अपेक्षा आपल्याला पेलतील अश्याच निवडतो. पण एखाद्या असाध्य गोष्टीची अनावर आसक्ती निर्माण झाली तर? नरकाचा रस्ता मोकळा होत असावा.

[photo courtesy: rangmarathi.com]

Agora

We dance round in a ring and suppose,But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

- Robert Frost

This short but haunting verse kept creeping in my mind as I watched Agora. The story is set in 4th century Alexandria. That was the time when Christen hordes were sweeping into the predominantly pagan Egypt. And Christianity was trying to get a foothold.

In these discordant times there lived a mathematician and philosopher named Hypatia. Remember, those were the days when people believed that the earth is flat. Many thinkers had tried to explain the motion of the planets that they saw in the night sky (they called them - wanderers). But there were too many inconsistencies in each explanation. Some had suggested that the Earth might actually be a wanderer itself in a circular path around the Sun. But the thought that something as stable as the ground can move was widely considered hilarious. Plus there was the observation that the Sun gets smaller in winter and bigger in summer. How do you explain that with a circular orbit?

If I could just unravel this just a little bit more, and just get a little closer to the answer, then... Then I would go to my grave a happy woman.

Hypatia was not interested in religion. When ridiculed as a non-believer by a christen official, she plainly states that she believes in philosophy alone. She was not interested in men. She famously rejects one of her suitors by presenting him her menstrual rags. Indicating that not all is harmonious and beautiful about the human body. A fact often forgotten when you are sexually attracted to someone. We are not used to female characters who would rather talk philosophy than be interested in men (call me sexist). But it was played very convincingly by Rachel Weisz. And it was easy to take in once I realized that it is just a stupid stereotype like any other.

[Usual Disclaimer: Watch the movie if you can. Otherwise read on..]

Things come to a climactic finish when Hypatia realizes that the Earth is in fact moving in an elliptic orbit around the Sun (Agora). But by then, in a strategic move to grab absolute power, the Bishop of Alexandria has declared that Christianity prohibits any women for teaching or learning philosophy, of even talking in public. He declares Hypatia a witch, knowing that the prefect of Alexandria was in love with her. She is hunted and about to be tortured. But Davus (her erstwhile personal slave turned missionary) finds some kindness in him and gives her a quick death. The most he can do for her. Her greatest discovery dying a quick death along with her.

It is said that her death effectively put on end to the long tradition of logic, reason and analytic thinking in Alexandria (It took mankind 13 more centuries to rediscover the same fact when Johannes Kepler finally published the laws of planetary motion in the 17th century.) One quote from her sums it all.

Synesius, you don't question what you believe, or cannot. I must.

 [Photo courtesy: wikipedia.org, shawmovies.sg, il7ad.com]

Ship of Theseus

Before I begin, let me say this up front. Ship of Theseus is a weird movie. Yes. I believe any film which starts with a huge human eyeball filling the screen and bobbling around can be considered weird. In fact, any film which does not have the likes of Salman Khan or Govinda in it has a potential of being weird. Some how these heros have the ability to kill any creative urges (read shaky camera angles, off focus frames, random scenes which don't really go anywhere) that the director might have. But just because it is weird does not mean it is not good. I liked it a lot (says something about me now does it?).

Trying to understand what the creators of this film were trying to 'say' through it does not make much sense. So i will not go there. Everyone will look at it through their own eyes and their unique circumstances. To me, it seemed like a series of questions. Questions meant not to get definite and unambiguous answers but to wonder, ponder and explore our lives and minds. It starts with this one.

The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

Is the whole just a sum of its parts? Or is there something more to it? This is true about most of the human body as well. Our cells are constantly dying and getting formed. So perhaps my hand is not the same as the one i had last year. So am i a new person now? Aristotle was an intelligent man. He proposed this. Every object is made of some materials, granted. But that is not all there is to it. It also has a design. It has a purpose for which it is built. In this case the materials changed but the design and purpose remained the same.

Fascinating how this might apply to us and not just inanimate objects. When do we say we have changed? With time? Sure, but that changes us only physically. Like this ship we are talking about. Ever heard someone say that they feel like a new person? Ever got that feeling yourself? Perhaps that is related more to purpose than materials. If i find a purpose, a passion, in this lifetime i will surely be a changed person. When someone says they don't feel like themselves anymore perhaps they might have lost their sense of purpose.

All the three main characters in the movie experience certain things which change them. Physically as well as mentally.

There was a photographer in the movie who asked me an interesting question. If we create something by accident and it turns out to be great. Should we take credit for it? A photo, a painting, a piece of code. The character in the movie did not want to take credit for the great shots that she got accidentally. She thinks that way she will loose control over her art. I wouldn't mind it so much. I guess art is anyways a little beyond control. So whatever you do or create you cannot take the whole credit for it. But it is also unique to you. If you ask someone else to do the same thing it will turn out different. So you cannot discredit it completely either.

The monk asked me how far am i willing to go to uphold my values. Values are tricky contraptions. The trickiness comes from the fact that they need to be consistent. If they are not consistent they are not really values. If you follow traffic rules, then you need to follow them even when you are terribly late for the most important meeting of your life. This monk takes it to the extreme. By his standards i don't have any values at all. We say we will not steal, stealing is bad. But in the face of intolerable hunger, will it hold? Should it hold? We find the easiest way out of a situation and say chalta hain yaar. There is ample time to justify our actions later on. The problem with that is we become inconsistent and confused ourselves. Meaning and purpose become harder to find. Is it better to be consistent even if you might be wrong, or is it better to be haphazard and perhaps get it right?

The third character was a typical one. Fed up with the 'social work' in his family he goes straight and hard for the mullah. He is in a hospital for a surgery where he sees a shocking incident of a poor helpless person being swindled big time. He finds himself fighting for that person. But fighting for someone else is not easy. For one, how do you know its over? That you have won? Your definition of winning might differ from the person you are fighting for. Is it best to accept the victim's judgement in this regard, even if you know it is wrong?

But i guess most of us won't be bothered by this question much. We usually don't find ourselves fighting for anyone but our friends and family, do we? :P

Pictures courtesy: pinkvilla, santabanta, boxofficeindia, bollywoodjournal

Rebel

दिग्दर्शकांनी ज्या प्रकारे चौकटीतील अवकाशाचा वापर केला आहे त्या मुळे जी निगेटिव स्पेस निर्माण होते ती आपल्याला बरच काही सांगायचा प्रयत्न करतीये. जी लोकं चार चौघात न घाबरता अशी वाक्य बोलू शकतात त्यांचा मला आदर वाटतो. अर्भात शोर्ट फिल्म क्लब च्या मागील भागाची थीम 'Spaces' अशी होती. मी जरा बिचकूनच होतो. अपेक्षे प्रमाणे मला ओ चा ठो काही कळलं नाही. अनेक अगम्य शोर्ट फिल्म एका मागून एक झाल्या. कधी झोप लागली कळलं नाही. जाग आली तेव्हा कोणीतरी भरगोस पांढरी दाढी असलेले इसम वरील प्रमाणे अव्हगड वाक्य बोलत होते (काही लोकं त्यांना समर नखाते सर अस म्हणत होते. असतील.) त्या नंतर 'Local' नावाची फिल्म दाखवली. ती मात्र मला कळण्यासारखी होती. फारच सहज सोपी आणि छान बनवली होती. फिल्म नंतर त्याचे दिग्दर्शक भरत पवार ह्याच्याशी संवाद झाला. कुठल्या तरी मजेशीर प्रेक्षकानी त्यांना विचारलं की तुम्ही असा बोल्ड विषय हाताळायचं का ठरवलंत? त्यावर नखाते सर म्हणाले सेक्स मध्ये काय बोल्ड आहे? तो माणूस गप्प बसला. त्या नंतर उस्ताद आमीर खांच्या वरची फिल्म्स डिविजन नी बनवलेली एक फिल्म लावली. ती तर फारच कमाल होती. त्यांचं जबरदस्त गाणं तर ऐकायला मिळालंच आणि खऱ्या आयुष्यात ते काय चीज होते हे पण कळलं. आपली आर्थिक परिस्थिती आपल्या मान सम्मान आणि नावाच्या बरोबरीची नसणं ही गोष्ट काही लोकांना लज्जास्पत किव्हा मानहानीकारक वाटू शकते. पण ते अश्या विचारांमध्ये अडकलेले दिसत नाहीत. उलट कलेचं वरदान मिळाल्या मुळे स्वताला खूप भाग्यवान समजतात. कमाल.

ह्या वेळेच्या शोर्ट फिल्म्स ची थीम 'Rebel'  अशी होती. म्हणून मला स्वतःकडून ते समजण्याच्या जरा जास्ती अपेक्षा होत्या. मला पोचायला पाच मिनिटं उशीर झाला आणि पहिली फिल्म आठ मिनिटांची होती. हि हि. पण शेवटची तीन मिनिटं पण solid होती. एका शाळेत मुलांना २ + २ = ५ असं शिकवत असतात. एका मुलाला हे पटत नसतं म्हणुन तो प्रश्ण विचारतो. उत्तर तर मिळत नाहीच पण धमक्या आणि मारहाणीन त्याच्या डोक्यात हे चुकीचे विचार ठोकले जातात. इतर मुलांनी तर कधीच भीती मुळे हे समीकरण मान्य केलं असतं. हुकुमशाही आणि totalitarianism (माझच खरं) मुळे लोकांची मनं कशी मारली जाऊ शकतात हे त्यांना दाखवायचं होतं कदाचित. असो 'Two and Two' चा शेवट अगदीच वाईट केला नाही हे आपलं नशीब.

'आमुख' मध्ये आपल्या वृद्ध पित्याची काळजी घेणारी एक शिक्षिका दाखवली होती. वडील जातात आणि अंत्य विधींची वेळ येते. घर चालवणे वडील आणि लहान भावाची काळजी घेणे हे सर्व तिनी एकटिनी  केलं असतं. पण तिला चितेच्या जवळ उभं पण रहायची परवानगी नसते. खोलीत कोंडून ठेवतात. ती बंड करते आणि भावाच्या बरोबरीनी चितेला अग्नी देते. शेवटच्या दृश्यात असं दिसतं की तिच्या वर्गातली सगळी मुलं निघून जाऊन एकच उरला आहे. पण ती त्याला तितक्याच उत्साहानी शिकवत आहे. असा आगाऊ पणा केला की त्याचा त्रास तुम्हाला होणारच. पण तरीही काही आगाऊ पणा शहाणपणाचे असावेत.

'विठ्ठल' हा प्रकार तर फारच अप्रतिम होता. विठ्ठलचे आजोबा जातात. त्याची अजिबात इच्छा नसताना त्याला बळजबरी पकडून त्याचं मुंडण करतात. त्याला माहित असतं की डोक्यावर केस नसल्या मुळे शाळेत त्याची खूप टिंगल होणारे. मोठ्या माणसांना त्याचं महत्व कळत नाही. केसच कापलेत ना? उगवतील परत दोन महिन्यात. त्या वयात मुलं काहीही सहन करू शकतात पण इतर मुलांकडून हेटाई होण्याला ते सर्वात घाबरतात. त्याला प्रचंड राग आलेला असतो आणि तो वेड्या वेड्या सारखं वागत असतो. अश्या प्रथांमध्ये मुलांना ओढून आणण्यात काही अर्थ असतो का? विषय गंभीर असला तरी सादरीकरण खूपच हलकं फुलकं ठेवलं होतं. दिग्दर्शक विनू चोलीपारंबीळ (मराठी नसून मराठी फिल्म बनवली !) ना कोणी तरी विचारलं की मुलं आणि प्राण्यांनकडून अभिनय करून घेणं सर्वात आवगड असतं असं म्हणतात. तुमचा काय अनुभव? ते म्हणले ती त्या छोट्या मुलाची भूमिका करणाऱ्या मुलाचा पहिल्या दिवशी पासून त्यांच्यावर इतका विश्वास होता की तो त्यांचं सगळं ऐकायचा. विश्वास असेल की बऱ्याच गोष्टी सोप्या होतात असं दिसतंय.

'पिस्तुल्या' नी तर सगळ्याचं मन जिंकलं. पारधी समाजामधला एक मुलगा ज्याला शाळेत जायची जबरदस्त इच्छा असते. पण इतर लोकं त्याला गचंडीला पकडून चोरी च 'training' देतात. शेवटच्या दृश्यात असं दाखवलंय की तो त्याच्या बहिणीसाठी शाळेचा गणवेश चोरतो. फिल्म संपल्यावर दिग्दर्शक नागराज मंजुळे ह्यांना पहिला प्रश्ण आला की हे त्यांच्या व्यक्तिगत अनुभवातून आलंय का? मला शॉकच बसला. पण नागराज ह्यांनी शांतपणे हो असं सांगितलं. त्यांच्या सगळ्या नातेवाहीकांमध्ये ते सर्वात जास्त शिकलेले. बाकी बहुतेक जण दुसरी तिसरी परेंतच. शिक्षणाची जबरदस्त इच्छा होती म्हणुनच शिकू शकले. माझ्या सारखं  'by default' graduate झाले नव्हते. त्यांचे ही फिल्म बनवतानाचे किस्से ऐकताना passion म्हणजे काय असू शकतं ह्याची जाणीव झाली. त्याची 'Fandry' नावाची नवीन फिल्म येत आहे. त्यासाठी त्यांना शुभेच्छा !!  

Amour

I am frightened by old age. That is the one thing that really scares me. Not death, but old age.

Have you ever seen a old couple sitting in a park? Or crossing a road? What do you think of when you see them?

You think they are cute. Perhaps they are. So used to each other. There are no sudden movements, no unanticipated actions. A lifetime spent together guarantees that. But they were not always like this. Once, so many years ago, they had also met for the first time. They must have tentatively asked each others preferences. Guessed what he or she might like or not like. Carefully planned vacations which might have gone terribly wrong. Unexpected journeys, memories of which have lost all their details with time, but not their essence. They must have fought and argued with each other. Vicious misunderstanding which perhaps would have more than once threatened their very relationship. They must have dreamed of their perfect home and chosen a sofa, a dinner table for it together. They must have expected so much from each other and yet sometimes, when it was needed, let the other be alone to do his or her own thing. But these passionate things are past now. What remains is a routine to be followed from here on to the very end. Not by choice but by compulsion. Your body simply won't tolerate anything new. It is heart wrenching to see something that started with such fun, passion and love, end up so dry, mundane and dead.

Amour is about a musician couple for whom old age is now a reality. Their once colorful and bright lives are now a series of slow movements and brief sentences. Illnesses set in and things go generally south. I was wondering what would it do to my self respect if i lose the ability to do the most mundane of everyday tasks? If i need to call for help every time i need to change my clothes? What if i know that this will never get better, old age is not reversible. Who would you ask for help everyday? Your partner is as old as you are. Your kids have their own lives their own worries to take care of. And what if you don't have any kids? Perhaps you would wish your parents were alive. I guess your mother is the only person you can ask for something without worrying how she would manage to do it. But she will be long long gone.

Somehow in India old age does not look that bad, yet. People still live with their parents. But things might change. You cannot demand freedom and independence (living separately) in your youth and then expect your kids to sacrifice their own plans and stay with you in your old age. That is just hypocrisy of the first degree. I increasingly feel our old age would not look like what we are seeing our parents go through right now. It would look more like what they show in Western movies. And it is a horrible terrible sight.

    

I have known people who get married and time their kids such that when they get old, their kids will be just the right age to come in handy. I don't know if their plan will work. I wish them the very best. For me, i have decided. The day i am not able to make it to the toilet and back on my own, i will register for sky-diving lessons. And if that doesn't work, i have a few other things on my mind.

Happy thirty third birthday to me.

PS: The other two movies that i saw on my long Mumbai - San Francisco flight were The Hobbit and Fargo. Both great movies, but not as rattling as this one. 

Why write reviews

I have realized quite recently that honesty is undervalued. And it is rare. Even in casual conversation, let alone carefully crafted blog-posts and articles. It is easy and most times very convenient to say things which will impress others than what we truly want to express. If you offered me a choice between smartness and honesty, i would have picked smartness any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Chicks dig it! But i guess i have reached a level of maturity (read, age) where impressing girls, though extremely desirable, is not the only thing that occupies my mind. And perhaps experience has also taught me that no amount cunning, stunning, trickery, smoothness or smartness, can make you a likeable person.

So even if one does not posses scathing insights on a subject, even if one does not posses flowery and eloquent skill with language, one shall strive to be true to himself and write honestly. And perhaps another one shall like reading it.

I try to write reviews about any new book, play or movie that i come across. Not because i want to judge that piece of creation. I doubt if anyone can do such a thing. But you do not improve at anything, or gain anything from an experience, unless you put some mental and physical energy into it. Writing a review makes you think about the experience once again, and that is where part of the learning takes place.

So write on and send me a link, would love to read it :)

Arbhaat Short Film Club

The venue was full before i got there. And i was on time. Umesh and Girish Kulkarni talked about films, short films and film making in general. I was amazed by the quality of Marathi that these guys converse in. It was obvious that they love the language and making films in it.

Mani Kaul's "Before my eyes" was a visual treat. Serene and majestic Himalayas and the Kashmir valley. It is supposed to be an iconic film, but yours truly been an average guy that he is, got bored midway through it. It was just beautiful depictions of nature from start to end. Umesh Kulkarni later described it as a poetry of visuals. आपल्याला साध्या कविता कळत नाहीत. हे काय कळणार? But the music was superb. There was a haunting piece in Dhrupad for most of the second half. The director had used a very nice ploy where the background music of one frame led to the object of the next one. While i was pondering over which instrument was used to render this soulful piece, the screen was filled with a young European girl with silver hair playing the cello. Sitting in a simple wooden houseboat, gliding on the smooth sparkling waters of some lake in Kashmir.

The girl who played the cello almost 34 years ago for this film, was present in the audience yesterday (This was no coincidence of course, she was invited). She talked about her learning Dhrupad with the Dagar brothers and leaving her country to live in India for all these years. People have such interesting lives!

I was utterly humbled by "Three of us". Directed by Umesh Kulkarni and having the most unusual cast, it stuck a cord with the audience. I had no idea that simple people, average looking people, can be so beautiful. This was a day in the life of a middle aged person with a severe deformity living with his ageing parents. You begin by feeling sorry for them but as you get to know them better you realize that their lives are not so different from ours. We might feel  better off, but perhaps if we put all our happy and sad moments on a balance sheet, it will not look too different from this family's accounts. I had read somewhere that permanent life circumstances like marriage, where you live, a disability, income level, do not affect your day-to-day happiness that much. Perhaps it is true.

"Kaatal" was another well made film. It won a lot of National Awards this year. But more that the film i liked what came after it. An interactive session with Yogesh Pawar (Best Director), Abhimanyu Dange (Best Cinematography), Alok Rajwade (Male Lead in Kaatal) and Prana Pethe (Female Lead in Kaatal). The audience asked the usual silly questions but these young guys handled them extremely well. The film is a bit arty and has a somewhat ambiguous ending. People kept asking the makers what _exactly_ did they want to express. To this Alok suggested that we, all of us, always want something definite, exact, unambiguous from most things in life. But the truth is never so. It was a slam dunk.

Pune 52: A prank film

Someone told me this is a suspense thriller, so i have to be honest, i went in with the wrong expectations.

It starts off like a crime thriller, deserted road, heavy downpour, a figure in a black trench-coat moving silently between the shadows. But that was pretty much it as far as the suspense in the movie goes (by the way, that figure turns out to be the detective returning home from work).

The makers of this movie were all respectable people who have made great movies in the past. So I started watching full of concentration trying not to miss anything that is offered on the screen. We even shushed some people who were passing comments and having a merry time.

Me: Why is everything so slow? didn't the reviews say this is a fast paced thriller?
Myself: Be patient. They are building up the plot for a thrilling twist.
Me: Why are the dialogues so, common place? This is boring.
Myself: Shut-up. It takes real talent to show the commonplace. This is sublime movie making.
Me: Why is it so dark? Why are they focusing on irrelevant things? Why is the camera shaking continuously?
Myself: You are so un-intellectual. This is all part of new cinema. Just watch and be awed.
Me: This is so absurd that it has started becoming funny. Nice. The audience has started having fun too.
Myself: You guys are stupid idiots. Just see,  everything will spectacularly make sense at the end.
Me: I am sleepy again. Wait. What? That's the end??
Myself: ... Do you want ice-cream?

If you are a person, or know a person, who has seen this movie and liked it, please please comment. I would be very interested in knowing what's the deal here.

Pune International Film Festival

Are German films about war? Are Israeli films very smart? Are French movies about love? South Korea, oh they have films there?

We typecast when we don't have the time or inclination to really understand someone. Films are no exception. I used to typecast films shown in such festivals as - short, no songs, non-stupid, most likely having an abrupt vague ending. But that is also not accurate.

This year i chose almost at random. And that turned out to be not such a bad ploy. You see, when we choose too carefully, we see what we already like.

Epilogue (from Israel): People who are passionate in their youth, what do they look like when they are old? I have a feeling their old-age would be lot worse than average people. Passion without energy must be excruciatingly painful. An old couple, living alone, in a society which has changed since their days. They do not understand it nor are they relevant in it. A slow existence filled with memories of the past and none to share them with. Throughout the movie i tried to find someone to blame for this. The government, their kids, degradation of social values, something. But there is really no enemy here, no villain. Old age can be hard and painful and lonely. So, one especially sorrowful night, they decided to leave their old-age behind. I thought it was a happy ending.

Inspector Lavardin (from France): The theatre was almost empty. Generally people space out in such settings, but an elderly uncle came and settled right besides me. Perhaps he didn't like watching movies alone. I don't like that either, so i didn't mind. This turned out to be a murder mystery. Uncle had an habit of stating the obvious. "oh there is blood on his shirt - oh she has a knife - i think the bar-owner killed the priest - no maybe the nurse is the killer, she looks cold". We all play this game, in our minds of course. I, like many others, boost of my ability to crack the case before it is revealed. But time and again i have realized that i cannot do it with foreign films. I don't think the reason is that they are more clever or cunning than us. Perhaps the real clues are not in the plot or the logic of the movie, they are in the characters. Those subtle things that they do, or don't do, that strike you as odd for no apparent reason. But when you remove the cultural context, you are lost. Anyways, this film was delightfully fast, funny and simple. Loved it.

Rosa (from Poland): This was a harrowing tale. Even the few slightly happy moments had a ominous thumping music in the background. Extreme circumstances like war, show the real you. Some pillage and plunger and rape and loot. Some protect and build and love and forgive.

Home for the Weekend (from Germany): The elder son who cannot get out of his father's shadow. The father whose ego is linked with helping his son and perhaps keeping him forever grateful. The younger son who is always treated as a minor turning out to be the most mature of the lot. This is a family story. Beautiful acting and superb settings. Almost every family drama that i see has one core element at the root of it. Our inability to let go of the people close to us. Our expectations from loved ones are always a mix of what is good for them AND what is good for us. But we always glorify the former and deny the existence of the later. Such it goes.

Barbara (from Germany): It is not easy to be a good person. We expect a lot more from someone who delivers. A person who simply pretends to be good can only do it so far. A doctor can save a patient with accurate diagnosis, sit by her side till she recovers. But can she forgo her own freedom and a bright future for that of her patient? This film is about someone who could. Would you give up something that you truly desire, for someone else? I respect people who can do that without regret. But i will not think ill of someone who doesn't to that either. I believe we have a right, first and foremost, to better ourselves in which ever way we can. If some of us decides to put others ahead of themselves, that is a brave decision. There should be no morality associated with it.  But like films we need to typecast people too.

I am twenty (from India): This was a 'Films Division ki bhet' black and white documentary. They were asking twenty year olds what they thought about their country and their future in it. There were people who were very hopeful of the future of India some who thought that it would soon go to the dogs and most who did not care for either. There was a young farmhand from Punjab who had no clue who the President or Prime Minister of India were but knew who the District Collector was. Talk about the British legacy. There was a girl who when asked what comes to your mind when you think of India, she said, queues. Queues for bus, or ration, or admissions. Talk about the Licence-Quote-Permit Raj. Very few people have wider view of the world than their own immediate circumstances. Apparently this documentary was done on 15th August 1967. When India was twenty. 

Explorer (from India): Another documentary from the black and white era. It was a cacophony of images, none lasting for more than 3 seconds. I thought it was a prank film.

Partner (from India): Obviously this was not part of the Film Festival. Perhaps after the weirdness of parallel or tangent or whatever cinema they call it, i needed some time with Sallubhai and Govinda. We put it on as a background entertainment while we had a couple of drinks with friends. There were some funny dialogues sometimes. But i did not like it much.

Another Earth

How do you live with a mistake? The ones that you simply can't undo.


I was travelling alone on a business trip to Shanghai. With dinner (or it's airline equivalent) served and done with, lights were dimmed and people around me started modifying themselves to fit into their economy class chairs. I decided to watch a movie or two instead. What would I like today? Something intellectually stimulating in the Art section? Perhaps a no-brainer comedy or a run-of-the-mill action thriller? I decided like most men do, the movie with the sexiest girl in the preview clip.


Another Earth was not something i expected. The movie started off slowly (well it was slow throughout), but it gripped me. The direction and acting was unhurried and simple. The music was terrific. There are many things in life that you start doing for all the wrong reasons, but in the end are glad that you did them. I am not sure how many people will like this movie. They might find it boring and odd. Perhaps i might have a different opinion if i watch it again. Perhaps it was because i was alone on an airplane. But i am glad i watched this movie.


“We are so self centered. Do you think they’re up there calling themselves Earth 2?”

Elementary, my dear Watson

If you are familiar with the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you know that no detail is trivial and no connection is to be overlooked. The essential element of a good mystery is not so much the revelation which comes at the end, but also the build up to it. We are given bits and pieces of seemingly connected events, while our minds struggle (enjoyably) to comprehend the big picture. Presenting a mystery is indeed, a very delicate art. You have to give your audience enough to keep them interested but not reveal the real masterstroke till the end. Very rarely does it happen that the story is good, and so is the conclusion.


However, the rule of thumb is that, no new information can be added at the end. Otherwise you are just cheating the audience. So you have to show everything that matters beforehand, but show it in such a way that the audience is unable to come to the final conclusion without your help. Directors must be using numerous tricks and gimmicks for this. Show something in a scene but don't focus on it. Reveal something ever so slightly and distract the audience with a bigger/noisier event before they get a chance to dwell over it. Perhaps these tricks are quiet easy and not so impressive. But there was one trick that was used in the recently released Sherlock Homes: Game of Shadows, with which i was most impressed.


[I don't think this reveals the plot of the movie, but a spoiler alert is in order.]


Some time into the movie, Mr. Holmes visits a fortune teller. We are shown around the room before the fortune teller makes her appearance. The room is nicely decorated with carpets, wall-hangings and such-likes. The camera shows a flower bed with some peculiar flowers in it, just enough for us to take notice. After this, a elaborate fight scene entertains us for some time, and the story moves on. (Remember this is the time when many characters are introduced to us, but their relationships to each other are in the dark.)
Next, Mr. Holmes visits his brilliant antagonist,  Moriarty. The Professor is talking with a student when Holmes enters. Holmes, as is his habit, starts surveying the chambers (along with us of course). As Holmes and Moriarty engage in their dialogue, we are shown several things, but two in particular. A used horticulture book near the blackboard and a flower bed with peculiar flowers on the windowsill.
Now, as it happens, we make the connection between the two flower beds and speculate on the relationship between Moriarty and the fortune teller. But due to this, we miss out the connection between the book and the plants, which is a key piece in the entire puzzle. Which of course, is only revealed at the end.


Nice, isn't it? What's more fun is that this is not an uncommon trick. In fact it's so common that they have a name for it in psychological studies. It's called Priming. I will leave you with a excerpt from this very interesting book that i am reading presently.

In the 1980s, psychologists discovered that exposure to a word causes immediate and measurable changes in the ease with which many related words can be evoked. If you have recently seen or heard the word EAT, you are temporarily more likely to complete the word fragment SO_P (try completing it before reading further ........... ...............................................................) with SOUP than as SOAP. The opposite would happen, of course, if you had just seen WASH. We call this a priming effect and say that the idea of EAT primes the idea of SOUP, and that WASH primes SOAP.

Mr. Guy Ritchie, you primed us with the first flower bed. Didn't you now? ;)


After-thought: I saw this movie once and enjoyed it. All this is a after thought. Hence, if i have got my facts wrong, please correct me. And even if i have got my facts wrong, this is a jolly good imagination, ain't it?

एक कप च्या - a cup of tea

so why did i decide to watch this obscure marathi movie with no star cast when Paa is the flavor of the season? couple of reasons.


firstly, marathi movies have raised the bar in all aspects of the game and i must admit i have enjoyed the likes of vaLu, ek daav dhobipachad and gabharicha paus more than their star studded hindi and, special effects studded english counterparts. secondly i was not in a mood for the intricacies of human emotions and 'relationships' :P (you have got to know bollywood to understand the quotes).


instead i was in a mood for something more practical and when this movie advertised that it is about RTI (Right to Information) Act, i went for it.


we never cross paths with the government and its infinite offices. we pay our taxes, mind our businesses and hope that we never have to deal with the courts, the police, the this department and the that department of the administration. only when we are dragged into these places (e.g. by an insanely high electricity bill that the dude in this movie is served with), do we begin to realize what a mess they really are.


by we, i dont actually mean you and me, 'cause we are the privileged class (people with liberal access to broadband connections can safely be termed as privileged in a country where most don't have access to good food and water). we won't have a problem even in these offices 'cause we can simply bribe our way through them.


but what if you don't have the money or don't want to indulge in bribery on principle? this is a story of such stupid people. and surprisingly, it has a happy ending :)