Of Gulaal, Reader, Little Zizou and what’s a good film
A fantastic weekend last week and a week (and more) spent in wondering what constitutes a good film makes me write this.
I saw Gulaal last week Saturday night show and next day Sunday, watched Reader and Little Zizou back-to-back. It’s a habit now. Have you done back-to-back movies anytime? It’s an experience. (As is watching movies alone, which is addictive, but that is stuff of some other post.)
I hadn’t felt as much as I did in the last few months as I did in these two days.
First Gulaal. I didn’t want the movie to end. Yes, the film is a tragedy. Way too tragic than Dev D, that seems like a fairy tale compared to this one, yet I was saddened when it came to an end. The joy was soaking in the craft, storytelling, thought, acting, music, production design all of which didn’t assault my senses like an invasion but did so to make a point, a statement, to make me listen. And listen I did. By the end of it I was stirred and shaken and everything in between. I like intense movies and I like movies that make me cry but I like movies that make me think more. Gulaal made me feel for it (I wanted to cry but Anurag K’s handling of emotion and emotional content is very objective, hardly giving scope to connect any other way but cerebrally) AND think. Which is a lot to say.
Raja Chaudhury, Abhimanyu Singh, Ayesha Mohan, Aditya Srivastava (the most powerful) delivered some such excellent performance without which the movie would’ve been lean. Piyush Mishra and his excellent contribution to the film, performance, music and lyrics is my star of the film. His Everyman brought the film alive and made it contextual, realistic and poetic but surreal at the same time. His character spoke volumes of the skewed realities we inhabit, the skewed-ness of which is noticed only by those perceived as skewed themselves by the other-wise ‘moral’ society. Excellent comment, metaphor and pathos invested in one character.
But I will have to come to things that I disliked about Gulaal. This is almost a disclaimer for all those wild kids who keep shouting about how we are blind in our ‘passionforanurag’ on pfc. They do not understand that criticism has a context and even if a film has its –ves, which every film does, they can be downplayed if its +ves are stronger and more relevant (which I am soon to do for the Little Zizou).
Kay Kay, always my favourite, let me down once again, playing his character on one pitch alone, without any variance, always high-strung…it was a let-down when he was the central string of power that held all the potential bombs together.
I have listened to Gulaal’s music for as long as it has come out and am extremely attached to it. I had made another world in my head of the words and music. Hence I felt the songs and their picturisation was mishandled. They had more power than the story-telling. Which upset the balance for me. Also in a sense I felt the songs were macro and the film micro. The universe both inhabited were like the umbra and penumbra. If the songs were talking about the larger picture of social revolution the film remained limited to the personal sphere of its central characters. +That was a slight put-off. But I wouldn’t like to pass it on to the maker because at times it happens with an over-active imagination which listens to songs before the promos are out and makes stories out of nothing. I should know coz I’ve done that with other films as well.
Coming to Reader, this is another one that made me cry and think at the same time. Whoever does think of a character who is so one-dimensional in her thinking that she cannot see the (de-)humanist side of her actions yet they come across as more innocent than heinous however abhorrent her actions were. And then the same person is so proud that she is ready to accept a condemning judgment to hide the fact that she cannot read or write. And she revels in the worlds woven by superb works of words. Which ultimately motivates her to learn reading and writing. And this is someone who was a willing and obedient participant of the Holocaust. A perfectly credible, humanised and relatable character. Someone you just cannot stand on judgment on. And what a performance by Kate Winslet. I have never loved her more.
I loved the movie more because it was from the point of view of Ralph Fiennes, the young Micheal. It could have been biased, but the director decides to keeps it fair and straight. The court scenes are excellent examples of the same. The juxtaposition of revealing layers of Kate’s character to us and to Micheal and what its doing to him was a beautiful story-telling device to keep us hooked emotionally as well as intellectually. We get an indication of Hannah turning out to be the anti-heroine but in the next instant our sympathies are bought over by some exemplary characterisation and acting. Somehow, it has already set the stage. The woman who made tender love to this boy twice younger than her, bathed him in a motherly fashion and listened to his stories like an awe-stricken little girl and fought with him like his possessive paramour cannot somehow have been the guard at the concentration camps at Auschwitz, a part of the episodes of 5 yrs, the whole world twists and turns to forget but cannot. And then she suddenly she is the heartless, cold-blooded, vicious murderer. But it is her simple sin of being unable to read and write that leads to her conviction but not before it lays bare the simplicity of her soul and the corruption and guilt in that of the other culpable. Beautiful statement and how very well-underplayed.
Another high-point of the film for me was when it throws the perspective off the vast-ness of the Holocaust. A very well-to-do, sophisticated and well-settled lady in America (the golden land, the saviour land, blah blah!) who survived the Holocaust and was once under Hannah refuses to pardon her. She says it is beyond her to do so, and somehow we see that she is right, but in the next instant Ralph says maybe they could donate the money to a foundation supporting literacy…for a lady who meant no harm, who was just doing her duty…Indeed what would you have done…?
The matter-of-fact handling of the unconventional and almost irregular relationship between the 40 something lady and the 16 yr-old boy left me awestruck at the sensitivity and maturity of the writer…unspoken moments of attachment… sparks of passion in possessive fires…neither questioning the space they are in, quietly attached to it…till it is time to leave…and the new shape it takes twenty years hence… reversal of roles…and a poignant story of pain, little and big and how all pain is ultimately the same…without drama…no bang…just a whimper…but a self-respecting one here…
Little Zizou took my heart away. I am a sucker for feel-good films. But most make me feel sad more than good, the attempts are so strained. Or calculated. LZ is calculated but sweetly camouflaged and even if the strain is there it is not in the feel-good factor.
I am always biased towards multiple ‘message’ or ‘objective’ films. Not only they make for a richer viewing, it is a challenge to string the various intents together in one cohesive whole or make one whole say so many things. If it works then as a viewer, I feel enriched and exuberant that such talent thrives in our industry and continues to re-shape the contours of our cinema.
LZ, in many ways is flawed, its multiple ‘messages’ can also be called a flaw but it is in the details that its God lies. The ecstatic celebration of the Parsi life, providing a window yet never really speaking from a cubby-hole. The identification is not with a community far-removed from the general ethos of India or a quirky community moving fast towards its extinction. The identification is with a community as unique as any in our diverse country but one which is also as involved with the same struggles, values, issues and ideals that the rest of the nation grapples with. Their mental and spiritual life is as banal or extraordinary as ours. Their concerns are universal and universal are the concerns of the writer-director Sooni Taraporewala. Liberal, moderate thinking, the belief in love and hope, following one’s dreams are some of the ‘little’ threads that sew this tapestry together.
The film is named after the boy and he is the central character but the film does not revolve around his mental world. He is the mouth-piece and eye-piece, well-chosen, the perspective needs to remain simple because our problems maybe complex but the answers are really simple. Zizou’s desires are simple…
Sprinkled with light humour, the film leaps from one to another through the lovable and well-etched central characters of little zizou, his brother Artaxerxes, the Boman Irani family. The character of the fundamentalist father and his secretary could well have been less slapstick, helping elevate the potency of the film. But maybe the intent was to keep the lightness while exploring serious and threatening issues…The father and his self-appointed priesthood and purity drive is not only a comment on the Parsi beliefs but metaphorical of the larger picture of communal disharmony that we live in. Sooni attacks and caricaturizes the thought behind the actions and has fun lampooning it. Such other ‘types’ (especially in political parties) in our country could do well to watch this film…
Many people I know, friends, family didn’t take to the film the way I did. I asked them why and they said it was tepid, wasn’t really going anywhere…a little pointless…well maybe it spoke to them that way…or maybe I saw it in a really good mood and loved all that it spoke to me…
So then what is a good film?
Many I’ve spoken to, haven’t liked Gulaal either…for the same reasons…Delhi-6 had that fate too…and so did Black, Ghajini, RNBDJ and countless other films that some like and some don’t…well I’ve always maintained that one liking-disliking a film is separate from the film inherently being good or bad. For eg, I didn’t like DDLJ despite it being a good film and disliked RNBDJ because it was a bad film and liked Jaane tu despite it being a little more than average film. So how do we define, categorize and use these terms…without being unjust to the film…?
Tags like ‘well-made’, ‘well-crafted’, and other such terms define the craft but is that all to put a film in a the bracket of good or bad…?
This is a great place for us to discuss this and sensitise ourselves before we dismiss the value of films of which we know little.
A ‘I didn’t like the film’ would suffice in the place of ‘it was a ****all film!’
No?
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
It’s an interesting point that you have raised here.
I don’t think that a quality of a film is a matter of opinion.
.
There’s an informed opinion and there’s an uninformed one. A mechanics opinion about a car is more accurate than a consumer’s opinion about it. Similarly, a good mechanic knows more than an average mechanic.
.
And this doesn’t apply to just films or mechanics. It applies to everything. Sports, Medicine, Dance… Everything.
.
Now, who knows more, depends on the genre. Different genres have different principles and are made by different sorts of creative people. Someone who writes dark cinema may be totally clueless about the kinetics of a mindless comedy. It’s not necessary, but it’s possible.
.
So, I think it’s important for people to appreciate the fact that different kinds of cinema is made for different people with different needs.
@Sameer (1),
] then they have no digestion for the variety.
, which is not true always. A good is a good, if some are not getting it then they are not in right frame of mind,mood and understanding at that time.
Thats so true. People exist in different varieties but when they come across the cinema like form of art [lets assume for a while that it is
Dalhausie fan is criticising harshly manmouji.
and its subjective remains the only polite way to avoid the clash
An average thing may surely appeal to many in different ways. Those with less exposure to better things may call them classic or what not.
along with all of this, its also true that audiences exist who see films for their merits and search merits whatever they are and whereever they exist in a film.
They may see films of any genere and will appreciate if films are honest to the chosen subjects.
Its useless to search a Pyassa in No country for oldmen or a Devdas in Fantoosh or a Sholay in Sparsh or a Qurbani in Kitaab.
I have a one line answer for you…….A good movie is one which touches your heart..
Anyone who claims that they like the movie because of it’s cinematography ,direction ,screenplay this and that is talking bull…
When you think twenty years back twenty years from now ,will you remember a film because it scored 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 5 ,you will like it because it touched a chord somewhere ,and if the movie manages to touch many peoples heart it’s called a classic.
Vineet, a film might touch anyone’s chord for any reason. Loving a film because of it’s cinematography or screenplay is not Bullshit if You love cinematography or screenplay. While I agree that at the end of the day it’s the connection with the heart, every thing that a person says he loves a movie for, are actually mediums for the connect. The most primitive and classic definition of a film is – “A film is a film, is a film, is a film.” Love has reasons only the heart that loves knows. Don’t judge it.
@Fatema,
were u ok with the edit of Gulaal?
@Sameer,
Good to see saner souls still around
@ Fatema, thank your writing this…
'« This is almost a disclaimer for all those wild kids who keep shouting about how we are blind in our '«passionforanurag' on pfc. They do not understand that criticism has a context and even if a film has its '±ves, which every film does, they can be downplayed if its +ves are stronger and more relevant (which I am soon to do for the Little Zizou)'– A '«I didn't like the film' would suffice in the place of '«it was a ****all film!'
No?'
Yes. I'm wild, I know. But here's the context: I felt we should also point towards the '«faults' of the movie and the '«passionforanurag' mindset. I did understand the context and where I am going to slam this '«hero-worshiping''³that's why I chose the tone. Yes, after a wild act, when you sit and give a second thought, you do realize the same criticism could be done in a more mature, responsible and constructive manner. You've rightly summed it up here: A '«I didn't like the film' would suffice in the place of '«it was a ****all film!'
And oh, I will explain why I wrote: Anurag isn't God, he ain't Godard either'– Somewhere I read readers at PFC consider him god (tehelka.com i think.. i couldn't find the post when i was googling for it today)'– and I play with sounds- hence Godard, a filmmaker who pushed cinema to every ‘possible’ creative limits (in use of cinematic language)'–
I'm happy that after my post, there was a fair assessment of Gulaal. Next time, I will keep my cool. '«You can't write a good review, if don't write bad ones first,' Anurag would have said (and here's the context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVv3eHx5Ro)
hey…
even i tried back to back movies…reader and zizou ..n i regret i saw little zizou….the reader was good…
regards
mars
@ Fatema
hey totally agree with the micro story/macro song thing in Gulaal…Al these day i was struggling to find words to express the same thing…!
I din’t like reader though…somehow I couldn’t accept the story that she suffered all those just to hide that she was illiterate…
Nice points Fatema and I am ye to write about Zizou..coming soon though.:)
I haven’t seen Reader and Little Zizou but i have the same opinion as yourself about Gulaal. I did not want the movie to end , it was like your grand mother telling you a story with so much love and passion that you wanted it to go on until you fell asleep.
Same with the songs I too felt they were too powerful and should have been used at appropriate junctures in the movie. But who are we to advise the grandmother who is telling us such a lovely story . Go on please , tell us another one.
What a view! what a review! what a point of view! you just made me go phhheeeww!
I think the main reason why people tend to dislike a movie is that they try to pick negatives. It happens in our daily life too,like relations getting sour when we find negatives in other people.so why not just accept the pulp and throw the seed.if we chew the seed, the taste is bound to get bitter.
As far as the movies you have reviewed … I also did not want gulaal to end because i was waiting for a better end than what i got. Have loads of issues with the film primarily related to consistency. Reader … Yes liked it but felt cheated by the censor board or whoever tampered with the film. The version i saw in e square pune was mutilated in a bid to avoid scenes of nudity and so the entire first half where kate and kiddo bond is very erratic. There is absolutely no flow. And thus it was hard to actually feel for kiddo … His sense of betrayal. Have not seen little z yet. As far as back to back well saw the first two installments of lord of the rings back to back followed by return of the king next day. That was mind blowing.
Dpac – Well, not really, but I saw it as a bit of narrative flaw rather than an editing flaw. Like I’ve noticed it in earlier AK films as well, scenes begin and end with pointless images or late enough to make it a little draggish…but if you notice closely, that is more of AK’s style, which I take it as an attempt to establishing char/mood/emotion/point. To us (me here) it seems a little unnecessary because of the fast-food films we (I’m) are conditioned to digest.
What were your issues with the edit of the film?
Salik – Err…the review or my views were not ‘inspired’ by your post. You needn’t really take them that personally you know…
Madhuresh – Err…What you going pheeewww about???
Dpac – I meant narrative ’style’ rather than narrative ‘flaw’.