Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
Aamir: One of Our Own Million Stories?
Aamir is ‘different’ in the sense that it seems that after eons one sees the streets of Bombay in a film how one might find them in real life. Aamir has its namesake protagonist land in Mumbai from the UK and get trapped in a nightmare situation. As soon as he gets out of the airport, he is put on call with a demanding and menacing gangster who wants Aamir to execute a terrorist plot if he wants to rescue his family that the gangster has taken hostage. Through the film, our man Aamir is sent from pillar to post running errands, collecting information, note slips, money and the bomb. Will he be be able to take control of the situation and prevail (the somewhat puzzling tagline goes, Kaun kehata hai aadmi apni kismet khud likhta hai, or Who says man is master of his destiny)?
Aamir is played honorably by the TV actor Rajeev Khadelwal, not an easy feat to pull off when you are held in a close-up for nearly the entire length of the film, and have to work with a small range of emotions, from being puzzled to getting mildly irritated (of ‘why are you doing this to me?” kind; character growth nahin hai, ol’ classicists may say, but that’s hardly Khandelwal’s fault). Wasiq Khan’s dressing up of locations (or sets?) keep to the gritty, realist feel (there is a loo scene – to illustrate the difficult life the Muslim qom lives in – and I’m yet to make up my find if it is done in utterly tasteless 1980s art films style or if it deserves praise for serving the above mentioned narrative point). The background score and songs deserve mention – they are done in an understated way and are often ironic.
Aamir, however, is slow and repetitive. An hour into the film, as Aamir is handed over a red carrier case, one wonders why was this not done within the first fifteen minutes itself. As noted before, the feel of the street truly adds to the film’s mise-en-scene; however, the editing is formulaic in that after an establishing long shot it cuts to several clips of close-ups of men looking into the camera (apparently wondering what our gentalman hero in woolen jacket & tie carrying a red bright case doing there?).
I have some other fundamental problems with the film – spoilers here – why does the gangster choose Aamir to be his carrier boy? When any of the available local men of the qom will carry out the fidayeen attack for a few thousand bucks, if not for free. Why does he also trust him with millions of rupees and then the bomb? What was the lecture on Qom all about? I might be nitpicking here, but the most important prop of the film, the bright red briefcase that is carrying the bomb looks close to the nuclear case the president of the US carries. All that was missing was an electronic pointer over the case saying, ‘Bomb inside!’ My biggest fight, however, is with how the film ends –– (perhaps here was an attempt to add meaning to the film’s tagline) Aamir blows himself up saving the innocent population, or, in other words, the Muslim Aamir blows himself up saving the target innocent Hindu population. To illustrate my antipathy to the concluding scenes of Aamir, let me give an example. It’s like American film producers making a “topical” and “sensitive” film in Iraq and through it sending out this message to the local population: if you are being recruited for terrorist, fidayeen attacks, please do not harm us, instead blow yourself up! These essential issues could have been redressed at the scripting stage.
The word around is also that the film is based on another film, ___ (please help me with the name here); a pity! because Bombay streets have their own ‘million stories’. As Mr Bob Dylan puts it, these tales are always right in front of you, blending together but you have to pull them apart to make any sense of them. Nonetheless, this realist, ‘heart-in-its-right-place’, low budget thriller is not a bad start for the film producers, UTV spotboy or its debutante director, Raj Kumar Gupta.
– Padmaja Thakore
20 Responses to “Aamir: One of Our Own Million Stories?”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Maachis: questions it ignited
- Aaja ACTING kar le - says Surya
- Rock On- Oh For 60 Minutes
- Himesh Bhai ka Karz
- Christopher Nolan and Batman - The Phenomenon
- Rock On- Oh For 60 Minutes
- Himesh Bhai ka Karz
- The Torture Series 3: Bhavani Junction
- Aaja ACTING kar le - says Surya
- Building the Perfect Beast
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
***************Spoilers Ahead******
Padmaja,
You seems to have missed the point
“I have some other fundamental problems with the film – spoilers here – why does the gangster choose Aamir to be his carrier boy? When any of the available local men of the qom will carry out the fidayeen attack for a few thousand bucks, if not for free”
Amir represented the educated and well settled people of the kaum, while if you watch the other characters (part of the nexus) they represents mostly uneducated,poor and oppressed sector of thek aum..and the fundamentalist for years have taken advantage of the uneducated ones for their vested interests.. Why the chief was keen on Aamir is that he wanted THE Settled and Educated ones to be part of Zihad.. In the end when aamir gets to his destiny, the chief is shown as he has a lost battle… Failed to get educated and settled ones to his side..
My only problem with the film is with the destiny of Aamir.. does it portray him as a Coward and not a Winner.. He could have managed to save people without hurting himself but did he wanted to avoid facing the repercussions of not following the orders, or even feared to be declared as a terrorist.. His action/decision didn’t helped anyone, the country, the kaum.. Yes he saved a few lifes but then he could have done more against the fundamentalists had he taken another decision.. Could have taken his fight further..
@Padmaja - villain phillum mein itni baar bola ke kyon Aamir ko choose kiya, phir bhi samaj mein nahi aaya kya? :P
@Pavan Jha - Aamir gave in to his human nature in the end. On one hand he wanted to save the hundreds on the road (who were not necessarily all Hindus, unless I am missing some demographical points here, as Padmaja puts it), but had he survived himself, he would have to witness the death of all loved ones as well. Villain ne kabhi family ko chhoda hai, unless Sunny praaji paisa deliver karne gaye ho!!? So, he killed himself, his family was going to die anyways. May be he was a coward in the end, but he just gave in to the impulse without thinking about the long shot.
Missed one point here - the reason the villain wanted to plant the bomb in the bus might be that it was non-Muslim area..I give you that Padmaja. :)
Expected a good film but Aamir is just an avarage movie. Period.
This is comment I posted on another thread. Apologies for repeating myself :
The first time I saw the film I didn’t get the ending either.
Aamir is about to throw the suitcase in the pit, then stops, turns around, looks at his tormentors, the sky, and then at the bomb. Within a span of several seconds, his expression changes from fear to loathing to stoic resolve.
The film opens with this line:
“Kaun kehta hai aadmi apni kismat khud likhta hai, sab bakwaas hai”
Thirty minutes into the film, Aamir states his belief that a man writes his destiny himself. The villain retorts “Sab bakwaas hai”, and I think something along the lines of “Who’s writing your destiny now?”
Why did Aamir choose to blow himself up? I think, Aamir, chose to take control, albeit at a very late stage. Whatever leverage he has, he uses it to write his own destiny. And so becomes the leader.
Re: Pavan’s comment: the chief was keen on Aamir is that he wanted THE Settled and Educated ones to be part of Zihad..:
So be it. However a tad foolish of chief to do so by handing over millions of rupees and the bomb to a first-timer on their first date.
Re: Tejas: villain phillum mein itni baar bola ke kyon Aamir ko choose kiya, phir bhi samaj mein nahi aaya kya?
Nahin. Nahin samjhi. Mostly because how he went about recruiting Aamir in service of the qom.
*
I have gotten calls on what I would have done to ‘redress’ the screenplay issues I raise. It is not my place to offer suggestion. But certainly some major overhauling is necessary instead of piecemeal solutions that just fix the symptoms. I would like to hear the bloggers’ opinion on fixing things ? in case there is an agreement on some of the issues I raised.
Pawan and Tejas,
the villian says that he wanted Aamir to turn into a true Aamir- a leader. But torturing a poor guy, kidnapping his family, getting him beaten up and forcing him to put a bomb in a bus is the stupidest way of making someone a leader. Imagine Che or Mao or even Osama going thru it????
i thot the whole point was that aamir was chosen because he belonged to a different class and the villian wanted him to “see” how the poor people in this community lived. i was really impressed with the film — it seemed to be drawing on two strains of narrative cinema - the “chase” film (on which is based all thrillers) but also the “quest” film which is more about finding oneself. like the bourse series that brings the two together, i thot aamir was also uniting the chase film to the quest film except that both happening at the behest of the villian. interesting since the villian wanted aamir to become a leader and he partly succeeded since aamir did commit jihad in the end — not for the quum but for insaaniyat. i personally loved it. many reasons:
1. this is the first film i have seen that treats the secular muslim as the main character caught between a (hindu) state that suspects him for being too muslim and a community that judges him for not being muslim enough. one common response to fundamentalism that i have heard is that if more muslims became “secular” — like aamir - there would be no problem. but this film shows how that is all bakwaas. even a responsible, law-abiding, accomplished person like aamir can become vulnerable just because his name is not amar! on the other hand, the villian wants him to be truly “aamir” and like any good quest narrative — in the end he becomes his name.
2. it also seemed a more complex and nuanced treatment of the minority problem than any other film i have seen and i am thinking mainly here of “bombay” and “dil se.” in “bombay” the issue is resolved as each community is reminded of their need to preserve their own families. so the resolution is selfish rather than selfless. this film shows a hero who is so unsafe that in order to act ethically, he has to sacrifice his family. such is the impossible situation of the ordinary minority citizen. also dil se ends with a similar scene of jihad but it is much less complex treatment (though more complex than bombay) since amar may not stop meghna but will die with her. the romantic union between majority and minority possible in “bombay” is impossible here except through death. here, aamir has to give up on not only his family but also on the possibility of a normal future with his hindu mashooqa
3. very complex take on realism — the villian is acts like a realist filmmaker here — by showing aamir how people really live he wants to turn him into a revolutionary. the villian uses realism as a political tool. yet, the film is also realistic even though it has shown us that realism can function like propaganda — brilliant.
sangita THAT really packed some punch!!!
Waah Sangita, yeh laga sixer!! Aur Natraj phir champion!!
pawan with lower cases in name - who knows! May be Osama, Che HAVE recruited some people like that!! Reality is often what you least expect from it..
Sangita: Re: your first point, [uniting] ‘two strains of narrative cinema – the ‘chase’ […] and ‘quest’: I have no qualm to the chase, the quest and the possible mixing of the two. However, I question the basis of the ‘chase’ and the nature of the ‘quest’. As mentioned before, the choice of Aamir by the villain (sic) for the chase is problematic. Also this ‘chase’ is so tightly orchestrated that not once until the climax Aamir gets to make a difference, redraw the rules of the game… its more like running errands for the man-in-command.
Which bring me to the second half of your first comment, ‘…wanted aamir to become a leader and he partly succeeded since aamir did commit jihad in the end’. Now, if the quest was for Aamir to regain control over his destiny or/ and for the villain to have him get to be the qom’s leader, the climactic suicide by Aamir (that also foils the villain’s plans to kill people) is quite simply a ridiculous culmination to either of these quests. By most standards, you need to be living to be able to have a measure of control over your destiny or be a leader for any future tasks.
I wholesomely agree on your next point on ‘impossible situation of the ordinary minority citizen’. We do indeed see Aamir struggle with both the anti-muslim mindset at the airport and, on the other hand, fight the islamic zealots who want him on their side. This is a fine point that the film somewhat makes and that I missed writing about.
Your final point – or the string of phrases – are unclear to me; I failed to see ‘the villain ‘acting like a ‘realist filmmaker’’ and then ‘using realism as a political tool’, or realism functioning like propaganda’. I am in two minds on the aesthetics of the shite-littered loo scene, but I certainly failed to find it as a ‘very complex take on realism’!
Padmaja
Padma,
my take on the red suitcases..
Aamir was the part of bomb funding nexus.. Aamir helped the badman (consiparator on phone) to get his fees for the bomb-blast.. Badman and Money-lenders are not connected each other.. Badman contacts Aamir, Badman has Karachi’s number, that’s it.. Aamir has to go to lender in India to get the money.. Badman receives money using Aamir in red bag. Changing suitcases was intentional - Badman hands over the bomb for blast and badman receives money from other parties for bomb blast..
Hopefully that make sense.. Its not badman’s money until he receives the first red suitcase…
Nik
And even if everything else can be taken at facevalue as being superintelligent because this was a film where the hallowed Mr. Kashyap was involved. BUT WHY THE HELL WAS THE SUITCASE RED?????
My solution to Aamir:
My two paisa solution to problems of Amir. First of all make Amir distantly related to the gangster. The former escaping the poor conditions by becoming a doctor; the gangster taking out khunnas on him. Second put gangster on police radar so he is under watch and can’t work on his own. These two together will answer why he was chosen amir for the job – due to both personal and circumstantial reasons.
Third make the arrival day of amir coincide with the very day the fanatic muslims are marking a ‘zehadi’ day eg. September 11, or fall of Babari masjid or the Gujarat riots, and the gangster is under order to operate a blast to mark the day. So he will use Amir.
Four separate gangster, terrorist and the money bags. Gangster is our amir’s maamu, terrorist is the Pakistani sleeper cell that has the bomb, and the money bags is one of the hafta centers. Now, Amir will have the task to get the money from money bags, hand it to the sleeper cell – who after confirming from Pakistan – will hand over the bomb to Amir. He will then be ordered to take it to a public gathering marking this occasion and plant the bomb.
Two solutions for the unfolding of events from here on until the end, for a regular Bollywood thriller have Amir discover the money and the bomb, work his out so as to turn around the game plan on the gangsters, have his family set free (using the time compulsion maamu has) and in the end have the bomb planted under his seat (we’ll see the mantralaya meeting going well as per the plans, only a blast in a Md Ali road kholi is reported; news of a gangster dead is brought to TV)! Or for a realism thriller like one we already have, Amir leaves the bomb where he is asked to and we end the film on his closeup just before the bomb is to go.
p.s Leave the realist toilet shots but change amir’s western clothes mid way so that he gels in with the crowd. Also change the colour of the red suitcase to something more regular. I suggest bright green ?, just kidding.
padmaja:
i guess i saw the film in a different way. i thot that the very fact that aamir is not able to take control of his destiny earlier illustrates the narrowing of the options for the secular individual from a minority community in an increasingly polarized world. aamir like most middle class people lived by the rules, struggled hard and made all the right moves. he went to make his fortune in london but unlike the NRIs in Karan Johar films, who are upper class and Hindu, aamir’s homecoming was quite different. Potentially persecuted in London for being a Muslim (the villian alludes to this), he returns to India but almost immediately has to be on the run! As such, the way the custom official sees him (as potential terrorist) is exactly what the villian wants him to become. But in order to avoid this destiny, he has to sacrifice himself — for us. I agree that there are potentially both Hindus, Muslims and others in the bus, but the act will be seen as an act of Islamic terrorism regardless of who dies. This is the reality everyday in Israel for instance — it is not so much about counting the dead by religion but the fact that such an act was committed against the majority. To show Aamir as being heroic earlier on would have been to make a different film — he was protecting his family in the way the middle classes always protect their families. That is what we are taught to do — we have very narrow loyalties. Do not get noticed, do not make noise and all will be well. In the end, Aami’s loyalties broadened — that is leadership no? When your family is less important than humanity — you move from being a protector of a few lives, to the protector of life itself. I was thinking of Gandhi as seen in “Gandhi, my Father” where Gandhi though a mahatma is a very mediocre dad. That is the burden of being Aamir — a leader.
I also liked the way the film showed us how entire communities, mohallas get transformed by terror. Aamir is constantly surveyed. Usually the state is an agent of surveillance — we submit to being ID’s and checked at airports, photographed for a driver’s license — because in return the state will protect us. The villian in the mohalla acts as a shadow state — uses the state’s mechanism’s of surveillance to control the actions of the citizen. In some ways , the film warns us about how surveillance is a two way street — to submit to state surveillance (Aamir in the opening scene) is also to potentially open yourself up to similar tactics of surveillance being used by anti state-actors like the villian.
Here, the dirty bathrooms are very important. The very fact that in globalizing Bombay (the opening montage), some people are forced to live in some abject circumstances means that the state has given up on its duty of bringing improvement in the lives of its minority citizens. In the absence of the state, another power (that of fundamentalism) takes over and runs the mohalla using the same mechanisms of control as that of the state (the cell phone is a great metaphor for how communication technologies can be used for good and evil). Here “Aamir” recalls films like “Satya”, “Company” and “Black Friday” where we have the police entering the mohalla only to chase the criminal — suggesting that the state enters such poor, gang-infested neighbourhoods only to exert power, never to improve it. But here the good citizen is being chased by teh gangster through that same mohalla.
But there is something very neat that the director does here — rather than repeat the frantic chase where our attention as viewers is entirely captured by movement — the films slows down and aamir is force to “LOOK” at the mohalla — the villian hopes that this look at the realities of the life of the poor will change him—and it does but not in the way the villian hopes. This is linked to my point about realism. One way that the cinema has always sought to introduce us to the realities of poverty and underdevelopment has been the aesthetic of realism (think Bimal Roy, K.A. Abbas etc) and here that same principle is put to work by the villian — kuch dekha, kuch sikha? that is why realism is so ambiguous in the film.
i need ur help to completed the story…
a story abut a boy…….
Also knowing my fixation with the bottom line one of the few movies that has made MORE in the second week of collections, than the FIRST.
sangita:
circles…
thanks really, padmaja
I see no mention of Cavite here? I watched this Filipino thriller and was taken aback by the tremendous similarities in plot, screenplay, execution, locations etc. I heard that Raj Kumar Gupta talked with the creators of Cavite and got permission (legal/written I don’t know), but after watching Cavite, I find it really really hard to believe that the script of Aamir is original.
I see some discussions about why Aamir was “the chosen one”. Cavite actually explaines that connection (the protagonist’s father worked for the terrorist organization and screwed them up with $75,000 - which he put in his son’s account before dying) — probably Raj Kumar Gupta didn’t find it necessary or may be he wanted to create a this-could-happen-to-you kind of effect.
I watched Aamir recently and loved it. Then I watched Cavite. For Raj Kumar Gupta to claim that Aamir is original is ridiculous. There are just TOO many similarities. I would have respected Aamir *much* more if the director had stood up and said that this is a remake.
[SPOILER ALERT]
Oh, and incidentally Cavite is the better product. In Aamir, our protagonist finds redemption in the end (even if he has to pay for it with his life). Suffice to say that this is pretty much a “filmy” ending if you think hard about it and especially after you watch Cavite. In Cavite, there is no redemption. Hell is forever, which is pretty much the way it is in real life.