Syd Field frowns at Dibakar Banerjee
iView Author: scriptlarva (Delhi, India) Email: turn360degree [at] hotmail [dot] com
Syd Field frowns at Dibakar Banerjee
Warning: Spoilers for Oye Lucky Oye Lucky, Slumdog millionaire, Johnny Gaddaar, A Wednesday, Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi
ACT ONE
The first 10 minutes:
None of my friends liked OLLO.
A: Whats this yaar? A guy steals. Then he again steals. And steals. Movie over.
Me: what else do you want?
A: Ek mazaa nahee aya. There is no specific story.
Me: What should have happened? There are lots of hit movies about a thief stealing a rusted crucible or a paper pin.
A: Nothing really happens in this movie.
Why would everyone feel like that? Here is a movie where novelty is dripping like sugar from gulab jamun and no one is satisfied with the story. But isn’t there a story? The middleclass aspirations. Backstabbing. Media hysteria. A subtle love story. Multiple cons. A prison escape. And another. Then why doesn’t it feel like a fulfilling story? Are there any elements missing for a satisfying story?
Plot point 1:
And then I listened to an interview by Dibakar Banerjee in which he had talked about people telling him that there is no story. He talks about the compulsive desire of the current audience to have ‘emotional orgasms’ every 5 minutes. That left me confused.
Because I didn’t feel that there is a deficiency of ‘orgasms’ in this movie. May be they are ‘intellectual orgasms’ rather than emotional. But they are there. The dramatic events. The unexpected turns. The ’smiling and walking away’ cons. The ’stiff upper lip’ love story.
Then what is lacking?
I think it’s the structure.
First of all let me tell you I am not a big fan of the ‘measuring tape approach’ of scriptwriting. But the bitter (and exhilarating) experience of scriptwriting has taught me that though you don’t have to worship the script gurus, certain intuition about at least the structure is necessary. Provided you are writing in the commercial format where you are left with the task of satisfying a crowd. If you are aiming to become the next Tarkovsky this doesn’t concern you. Be a free bird.
ACT TWO
If one breaks down the sequences or rather ’story elements’ in OLLO, it would be some what like this.
• Lucky in jail (This movie may end bad. So lower your expectations)
• Adolescence-stepmother- girl- stealing starts (heart or bike?)
• Meets Gogi- issue with ministers son (future strain with Gogi visible)
• Meets the girl
• Steals another car- music system- snapshots of good time with Gogi
• Car antics with girl (Surprise! Girl likes him)
• Goes to minister son’s house (we now know Gogi is going to be an enemy)
• Dolly fails with Lucky
• Gogi taunts Bengali-The chair incident- taunts Lucky (Lucky and Gogi are enemies)
• Arrest- father refuses to give bail- Lucky understands who betrayed him-escapes
• Lucky steals a laptop
• Meets vet. doctor in a plane
• Special officer threatens Gogi
• Eating at home with the girl (OK OK now they are an item)- the reporter on TV
• Meets Bengali again- takes him under his wings
• Restaurant dream- doctor (we know this is not going to work out, why don’t he?)
• Attempt at reporter’s house
• Ideas for the dog- success with the reporter (but now doctor knows)
• Too much heat- goes for a tour with girl- meets brother- proposes- invites father (the girl will stand with him whatever he is and his family won’t)
• Suggests Bengali for the restaurant credit (he is foolish though he is clever)
• Putting dolly in her place (I too have respectability)
• Good times with the vet. doctor
• Bad times with vet doctor (I told you)
• Lucky upset and steals back everything (you can say Lucky became eccentric after losing hope of a middle class respectability- but for me he showed a lack in consistency of character ie shrewdness and survival instincts)
• Gogi warns (we know the end of the movie is near)
• Bengali out
• Meets the girl (I know, I know. This may be the last meeting)
• Caught
• The media frenzy (pot shots at the channels)
• The escape
• The end
So what’s the one line of the movie?
A thief disillusioned with criminality tries to wriggle into a middle class respectability by stealing and fails.
Two problems here.
• It is interpretation. Not story. Its theme. Not plot.
• If it is so, movie ends when he has been betrayed again. The rest of it is unnecessary dragging extension.
The subplots/ side stories:
What if we break down the story in terms of story elements and avoid interpretations?
Before we go on lets rule out another thing. Is it that the method would be wrong? Is a good linear interpretation (theme) enough for a satisfying story? Is this breaking into story elements going to make a jumble of events in any movie?
I am going to break down three movies (in a much shorter manner) I have seen the last one month.
Three street smart kids growing in the slums together. A girl gets separated. The two boys survive in the vicissitudes of life but the protagonist (one of the boys) still searching for the girl. Meets her again but now the enemy is his own brother. Comes back again in search of her. She is a mistress of a don and his brother a goon now. Loves each other but loses her again. To get to her participates in KBC. All the twists and turns in his life helps him to answer and advance. The host has ego hassles and he makes sure he ends up in jail. Manages to convince the police, comes back and wins. At the same time brother changes his mind as he is touched by the protagonist’s love and doggedness and boy gets the girl.
The linear story is there. (It’s an ordinary story. But when you write it this way and see the movie you realise that it was a great screenplay)
Some one plants bomb in police station. He claims that he has planted similar bombs all over the city. He wants three terrorists freed from the jail. Otherwise he will detonate the bombs. The police work efficiently but they are no match for him. They tranfer the terrorists but the terrorists are killed instead of being rescued. Protagonist is a ‘common man’ who wants an end to the bloodshed of ‘common men.’ police chief gets to him but lets him go.
Hmm. The story goes like a bullet from a barrel. And more important no events lie outside the story arc.
Tying up the side stories:
An attention to structure does pay a divident.
Why does some movies fizzle out in the end without a major climactic peak? Because the final plot point is not established properly. Ex: Cheeni kum.
Why does the ’solution by Rab’ by which Taani starts loving Suri remains unsatisfying in Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi? I think it creates a problem in structure or rather tries to cover up a problem in structure. That solution causes a jump in the plot. It’s like ‘one fine morning Taani started loving Suri’. From the beginning of the movie we know that this is their love story. But the writer takes a major chunk of screen time in establishing Taani-Raj love story at the expense of theirs. So when the real stuff comes up its over before it has begun. (consider the screen time between the first meeting and really (acknowledging) falling in love in Dil wale dulhaniya le jayenge and Hum dil de chuke sanam). My personal opinion is that either Taani-Raj love story should have been established much faster or both the love stories should have developed in parellel.
Why does some movies drag? Because they prolong an inevitable and foreseeable plot point or twist. Some times the issues with structure is inherent in some themes and plots. Ex: numerous ghost/slasher movies. The stuff like ‘they go into the jungle and die one by one’.
Some times it happens even with the best of intentions and cleverest of executions.
Take Johnny Gaddar. We know this is going to end badly the moment Vikram throws his friend out of the train. And when the character played by Dharmendra is killed, we know that other friends are going to follow him to the grave. The rest of the movie is about how it happens. Consider that instead of 6 people the gang had 10 people or may be 3 people. It doesn’t change things much except the finer details. The moment Vikram makes a step in that direction the movie comes to a stand still. The events become mechanical and they don’t have any emotional investment to put on the table. This will remain a deterrant for attempting this kind of genres.
Final plot point:
Lets have another try at OLLE including all story elements. And lets try to stay away from interpretations.
A lovable thief is born (?influenced by his experiences as an adolescent). He bonds with a god father. Breaks up and gets cheated by his god father. He becomes a headache for the police. A girl still manages to love him. He is again cheated by a respectable doctor. He is arrested because a friend betrays him. The media sensationalises him and he becomes some kind of a hero. He escapes in the end.
Am I imagining it? I cannot see a satisfying linear progression.
ACT THREE
Take the first part where Lucky’s adolescence and entry into his vocation is shown. There are lot of elements and things happening. But what would happen if we simply remove that section of the movie?(despite that part being a real gem). Would it really matter? It sets the context for showing his family’s distancing themselves from him later on. But does it really contribute to the story in any way?(other than some interpretations that you can make?)
Coming to Gogi bhai. The relation with Gogi arcs very fast from good to bad, ending in the first prison escape. But it becomes a sort of a curse in disguise. What had to happen in that relationship has happened already. So he becomes just a brick in the wall in the second half. Some thing to be shown in between but that would never fall down. Of course he causes Lucky’s second capture. But that second betrayal doesn’t appear as a culmination of a process. Its more like a light is being switched on. Because Gogi is threatened at multiple times by the special officer. Gogi has already shown once that he would not hesitate to hand Lucky over. So it doesn’t constitute a specific new plot point. Just the repetition of a process. Though in part precipitated by Lucky’s recklessness after being cheated by vet.doctor the link is weak. So what I am trying to say is that Gogi becomes inconsequential in the second half after investing so much screen time and interest in the first half.
Same with the vet.doctor. There is no connection between him(the second half) and Gogi bhai (the first half). I can interpret that Lucky’s experience with Gogi led to chasing the restaurant proposal but it will remain an interpretation but not a direct story progression. And at the end of his relationship with the doctor he is caught by the police. But due to Gogi. And also due to Gogi’s relation with Bengali. Here a story element from first half bypasses the vetenary doctor to make a connection. Obviously stranding the story of the doctor. One may object saying that the reason Bengali betrayed him in the end is that he tasted blood as the partner of the restaurant. and that the story has a linear progression. But again Gogi is the one who is really arranging his capture and he has done it alone earlier also. Making the role of Bengali weak in the last betrayal.
The thefts. The movie gives good and bad examples of integration. You get a good example of integration where they steal a second Mercedes after they discard their first one which had ended up dry (!) . The theft is a part of how they get into the ‘Gogi club.’ The theft at the reporter’s house gives an occasion for vet. doc to know the truth about Lucky. But what about the music system and laptop from the restaurant? May be helped to show that he is increasingly becoming a head ache to the police.
The love story. I realise that the hero in a Hindi film needs to have a heroine whether it matters to the story or not. So I keep mum.
Coming to the media frenzy in the end. The writer takes great pains to dissect it, exhibit it and laugh at it. But it appears like an add on at the end, out of context. Suddenly the movie gets interested about the media and throws away all other threads. Threads like what happens with the girl. I am not complaining that ‘movie didn’t show Lucky getting back for the betrayals’. It would have been downright silly. But so many threads are kept hanging when writer becomes preoccupied with examining the media.
Basically what I am trying to say is that in OLLO the elements appear like individual ponds but not a continuous river.
One can say that if you break down like this, most of the movies will appear disjointed. Or that OLLO still did good business.
Or that Dibakar Banerjee intentionally did it this way. To show that our life is a sum of random events. Or that he wanted to evoke a certain mood rather than audience getting involved with the mundane drama.
May be. But what concerned me was whether it is possible to pick out some concrete aspects of any given story which can predict it will be satisfying to the audience or not.
May be there are no rules to this. Every thing depends on some random elements. Like how tasty your popcorn is and how much oxygen saturated your theatre is.
The Shyamalan twist:
Thanks for reading this bull shit. The real reason for this exercise was that I have spend almost a year writing a con movie now and dull response to OLLO left me uneasy. If something as good as OLLO don’t become a block buster what chance do I have to even market my script? Is it possible that con/heist movies don’t work with our audience now a days? This was a desperate attempt to find a reason to write on. At least I was successful in confusing myself.
Tags: A Wednesday, Johnny Gaddaar, Oye Lucky Oye Lucky, Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, Slumdog Millionaire
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
Masterclass with Scriptlarva!
although i liked OLLO for its performances and the string of incidents as u just mentioned, its problem lies in story-telling. i felt there was no story to tell in the 3-act structure. generally, we should have a premise, then a body and then the conclusion or summary. this movie had a premise but its body was stitched by sequences which were not necessarily in linear time. if the editor had mixed up the various stealing/robbery sequences, it still wud have made sense; which is wat the audience does not want. they want a proper sequence of events – aghaaz and anjaam. the movie jumped stages and lucky kept wiping the art off his back and moving ahead; he did not get back to avenge anybody. tats where the i as a audience felt cheated. for me, it looked straight out of aajtak’s reconstructed crime events without rhyme and reason. if u see most movies which deal with stealing/robbery there seems to be a strong motive for it; and an equally strong backlash/reaction to tat. stealing for the heck of it, tat did not cut ice with the audience. watch ‘italian job’ or ‘rservoir dog’ for a heist drama; and for petty crimes ‘bonny and clyde’ etc; u will notice the 3-act structure,
‘kept wiping the art off his back’; i meant ‘kept wiping the dirt off his back’
nice article dude:)…bit i feel ollo didnt strike an emotional chord (atleast to me)…for instance lets take catch me if u can which is brillinatly layered with emotional..i mean you feel…ollo is intelliegent and deliberatley complex in its approach..
I mostly agree with OLLO’s dissection. Also like as @3 above, it does not connect. Also it look like, the director/screenplay writer had certain definitive scenes in mind, and there was a forced attempt to include all of them, like the adolescence crush, the rich boys and girls coming out of the car scene, and the list goes on. So in the attempt, the natural flow to the story/events went away. Still a very very good watch.
But on the very grounds you dissected OLLO, i did not like slumdog millionaire. When I watched the first question (Amitabh one), and then a corresponding story from the boy’s life, the structure became clear and in my case I dislike it for having upto 12/15 questions’ worth of coincidence. And after the riots question, it became clear that each question in some way will try to bring out a particular problem in India, which was too preachy for my taste. And I was right, the begging industry, then tourism fraud, the real estate mafia, story goes on. I disliked it, and not because it showed only the underbelly but because it was a stupid movie. If I want to watch the “problems with India” movie, I will go back to Daminis, Shools, and angry young man movies any day.
Thanks J
@ Crazyrals
I agree with most of your opinions.
‘if u see most movies which deal with stealing/robbery there seems to be a strong motive for it; and an equally strong backlash/reaction to tat.’
But I think it is a part of Dibakar Banerjee’s genius that he didnt give Lucky a strong motive. Because thats the way most criminals are. They steal not because of evil uncles or social injustice but due to easy money.
May be even with retaining a motiveless Lucky, an attention to the linear structure would have helped the movie.
@ brave heart
Yes it is more intellectual than emotional. But there are lot of con movies that are intellectual/ technical rather than emotional and still work with audience. How emotional is ‘A wednesday?’ Still it worked with the audience.
@ noncon
Regarding SDM, I dont want to get into a discussion regarding the social statements it makes or doesnt make. Because it would be jumping into (an already crowded)train which is going on in a relentless fashion in a circular track.
But if you are talking about the structure of screenplay I think its a good piece of work. It takes some effort to cut a story into 2-3 different threads and make them progress together. And then jump from one thread to another every 3 minutes not only without irritating the audience but also making the jump meaningful in exposition of plot. Believe me. It’s tough. It appears effortless and smooth only because of the work done on it.
Hi, it was very interesting but was long and still somewhat unclear what you are trying to really say. And do feel the writing process is too organic and undecipherable, even to the writer.
And the Syd Field/McKee formulas and ‘advice’ are all after the fact.
Csn we analyse A short film about Killing, Johny Mera Naam, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, Deewaar and Sholay by the same rules.
If so, what rules did the writers of the films follow…except perhaps for ‘thou shall not bore’
Your Shyamalan twist stuff sort of put me off. Negative thinking of high order.
OLLO didnt work perhaps according to you but i think it worked on the viewers Dibakar wanted to reach and entertain. Or maybe it’s a chance he took and the success/failure has taught him something.
Would love to read your con script, but only once you feel this is the best draft you can do. And you should also send it to Dibakar. And every director you like (and dont like).
At the end of the day, a writer makes a film for an audience. And that audience doesn’t necessarily consist of writers and filmmakers who will sit and analyse films like an economist analyses statistics…
.
I believe that a writer should never watch a film to explore the finer nuances of how it was written. He should watch it for entertainment and entertainment only.
.
After a while, (in case of creative minds) the sense of entertainment will get refined. This is when you start writing, and observe from a completely objective point of view what you have written. If it entertains you once, twice, thrice and several times… you go ahead with the script.
.
Give me one film(or novel/screenplay) which worked on a certain formula… Religiously following Syd Field or any other chap who claims to have cracked the code of screenwriting, is nothing but being dishonest to your creativity… At least, that’s what I beieve.
.
As AK says in one of his interviews with Ajay Brahmataj, everyone needs to find his own formula of making films. DDLJ didn’t have a formula for all I know. Nor as Sriram Raghavan points out did Sholay have any. Or maybe even Andaaz Apna Apna. Are the screenplays not good.
.
As for OLLO, I didn’t like it… One, because the ending was a bit lame and Two, the suspense lacked substance. It felt more like a TV serial… Watchable, but not something which gives you emotional orgasms.
Edit (the last comment had a major conceptual typo):
Give me one film(or novel/screenplay) which you truly admire and it has worked on a certain formula… Religiously following Syd Field or any other chap who claims to have cracked the code of screenwriting, is nothing but being dishonest to your creativity… At least, that’s what I beieve.
@ Shriram Raghavan (Wow!)
What I was trying to say is that if there was a better linear continuity in OLLO, it would have been a bigger success which it deserved it to be.
I am a nonbeliever of Sydfield/ Mckee formulas if one is talking about ‘plot points’ and ‘3 acts’ and other similar nomenclatural hocus pocus.
But I do believe that there are some structural aspects in the current format of 2 hr commercial cinema which may influence the audience’s evaluation of it.
One would be sticking to a basic thread of a story and then ramify rather than attempt ‘hundred years of solitude’ on celluloid.
Another- define what this story is going to be all about much early in the story and then stick to it. In other words dont try A and B’s friendship in first half and then move on to B and C ’s enmity in the second half-
and so on. Even Johnny Gaddaar sticks to these two.
Salim- Javed may have not had formal training in script structure. But good writers are those who have intuitive awareness about such aspects.
All the movies that you have mentioned are bound by a linear narrative about a singular theme. All of them kick start from the premise very early on. Goodfellas in the first scene itself (thanks to the voice over), Sholay when we see handless takur and the friends together(and its less about Gabbar singh than about the friendship),
shawshank a little later (I am going to escape) etc.
What I am trying to say is that writing with good structure is like driving. You dont need to be able to name the engine parts to drive.
The Shyamalan twist was a last minute addition. I didnt want to end with a negative note on OLLO because I like that movie. So I put the barrel in my own mouth. But I guess the twist was a let down like most Shyamalan twists.
As I mentioned in the article itself I am not interested in Dibakar Banerjee’s original intentions and whether he was successful or not. OLLO was just a source of case study for me. Just to try and see if some common patterns are emerging regarding why some felt it ‘didnt have a story.’ The fact that such an impression exists for some viewers is vouched by DB’s interview itself which I heard from pfc.
Regarding my script, I am sincerely happy to see your words. The inescapable fact remains that I am neurotic and perfectionistic regarding my script(you should have guessed by now by the way I tear apart the things I love). It would take another 2-3 months to reach a satisfiable level on that. And the subject suits you and I hope the script wont disappoint. Will definitely sent DB a copy. Because this article is basically a fan mail for him.
@ Sameer
Kindly read my reply to Shriram Raghavan. It would clarify most of my points.
Before a further deluge of comments claiming me to be a stooge of SydField/Mckee appear let me quote from my own article=
”First of all let me tell you I am not a big fan of the ‘measuring tape approach’ of scriptwriting. But the bitter (and exhilarating) experience of scriptwriting has taught me that though you don’t have to worship the script gurus, certain INTUITION about at least the structure is necessary.”
And your comment
”I believe that a writer should never watch a film to explore the finer nuances of how it was written. He should watch it for entertainment and entertainment only.”
—-I absolutely disagree.
“I believe that a writer should never watch a film to explore the finer nuances of how it was written. He should watch it for entertainment and entertainment only.”
.
Well, to each his own. I personally have tried this approach. And having watched and analysed several films, I have realised that all good movies are different and unique. The only common link that I have found between them are that they are unique and entertaining. Now, even though I have stopped analysing films, I belive that every good film provides me with some education regarding the art of writing.
.
Even in acting, it’s wrong to try and perfect that jim carrey or a denzel washington expression. What you’ve got to do is stay true to the character and hope that you develop a unique expression of your own. But watching Jim Carrey or Amitabh Bachchan perform is a learning experience nonetheless.
.
And yeah, sorry for mistaking you as a sydfield stooge. It was just that the whole Act 1, Act 2 thing ticked me off… Anyways, shall be more careful next time.
I am a novice to screenwriting – but have read a lot of scripts and books. Losing/Changing focus in the end is absolutely the reason for viewer losing interest – i saw a tamil movie the other day where the exact same thing happenned – it is about love/friendship among college going kids – very focussed, well written etc but the climax is about the students getting caught in the middle of a dharna and their bus getting burnt and the heroine dies – what the hell happenned ? The audience had no idea that this is going to happen. The whole movie the hero/heroine are struggling to express their love because of friendship concerns blah blah and suddenly something unrelated ( however true and well shot it might be ) to my thought process of the past 2 hours went beserk. I am like “what the f@#$” just happenned ? I am not saying these things dont happen in real life, but you need to set the viewer up. As I have read “You give what the viewer wants with UNPREDICTABILITY”. I see the same issue with the story above – if there was constant reference to the media hatred eiher from the protagonist or were a deterrant/helpful etc to him from the beginning, then the viewer knows that and is not taken in a tangent in the end.
@scriptlarva: “They steal not because of evil uncles or social injustice but due to easy money”
… catch me if u can was based on similar lines, steal for easy money and then it becomes a habit which they just can’t get out of. but then, u had a chase drama, someone trying to get him and they followed tom hanks story too.
in OLLO, police were trying to look for him but there was no conserted effort as a team [cid/cbi/stf] or as a single individual[dgp/ips] to find him. even 1.40 last local had a police guy ochasing the goons which kept the audience interested. so, the chase drama was not on and the audience did not know wat to expect next. and all of a sudden abhay finds it futile and he wishes to give-in, again without any motive or an external/inetrnal emotional binding or expereince. so, u just cant go about stealing and stealing and stealing…the loose ends were not tied together; there was no retribution or a justification. tats wat failed the movie.
One Advice.. throw Syd Field in the dustbin.. or even better gift it to your enemy.. get over the guy.. He is good to analyse a movie after it has been successful..
Nice article. Helped me understand what I felt was missing from both OLLO and GD.
@ Sameer
As you say, to each his own. Thanks for acknowledging the stooge thing.
@Crazyrals & Padhu
Agree with both of you on all points.
@ Anurag Kashyap (Wow!)
First let me repeat that I dont endorse scriptgurus as I have mentioned in my article. But there may be some aspects specific to screenplay if a novel say Q&A had to be first adapted to a screenplay before it can be made into a film.
Put differently if a same story is done as a 2 hour film and as a 4 hour film what would be changes one would have to make? Is there a pattern to the changes that one will be making?
Considering that writer of Satya is one of my screenwriting idols I am curious regarding how you do a 2 hr story. Does your writing progress in a ‘lets see what interesting can happen next’ way rather than 1st making a frame work with outlining? Really curious there.
@ Aditya Oberoi & Vamsi
Really appreciate your feedback.
the best, most memorable scripts are written not on the basis of what should happen when to evoke what response from the audience. they are written with an idea, an intention and a lot of bilious feelings in the gut and a lot of soul searching. spend less time on discourse and more time just writing scripts. adi’s DDLJ, anurag’s SATYA and BLACK FRIDAY, jaideep’s COMPANY and KHOSLA… were all written driven by instinct and intention. when these very writers tried to second-guess the audience they fell flat on their faces. all the best.
interesting article and interesting theories . let me suggest something concrete – what if there had been a small subplot involving the cop who eventually catches lucky ? 3 or 4 short scenes could have been inserted at various points in the movie – we see the cop being called to the scene of the robberies, asking around ,just doing his job.it could have been done in montage type scenes too. then we eventually see the cop catch lucky as shown in the film. this would have given a strong narrative thrust to the film and the ending would make more logical and emotional sense.the fact that lucky slips away again at the end would have been a nice kicker .
About the box-office performance of OLLO, I don’t think one can say it’s been dull. I just read in The Telegraph that it was made for 8 crore and has done business of 12 crore (or was it 15) in India and 5 crore overseas
nice post scriptlava
.
OLLO is a mystery to me. i like the movie but i wonder why i don’t love it. and yeah, i agree with you that if there was another subplot of a cop chasing lucky then the conclusion might have felt more complete.
.
but the fact is that OLLO is a character-driven movie, and the story is all about what lucky goes through. plot is secondary. therefore what lucky sees around him and how he interprets it is what fuels the screenplay. so in this case, interpretation is the most important driving factor. the audience therefore has to rely on their interpretation of what lucky is thinking about. if you throw in another cop story, because of the character-driven screeplay, the narrative might have to digress to include the character-development of the cop as well (and what he’s thinking to keep the tone), shifting focus from lucky. so it’s kind of a double-edged sword.
.
this movie reminds me of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and of course, Catch Me If You Can. it’s a detailed character study like Taxi Driver except that taxi driver ends with a bang. perhaps that was missing? of course it was superior to ollo in many other ways but i’m just concentrating on breaking down the screenplay.
.
and Goodfellas has so many things in common with ollo’s story progression. young boy becomes a crook to get respect because father can’t get that to him. young man who’s a successful crook is too ambitious and cocky to stay under the leash of new father-figure (paulie/gogi). professional crook breaks free and starts doing business with another senior crook/father figure (deniro/handa) who eventually betrays his trust also. the main character finally gives in and hands himself over to the authorities.
.
but man, Johnny Gaddaar to me was perfect. nothing in the movie dragged things down. the fact that we know something bad is gona happen was obvious, but the suspense of what and how its was gona happen was too good. a lot of hitchcock’s famous movies established who did what. the great suspense in his movies that kept the audience riveted was all about how its going to play out, not ‘whodunit’.
@ Devashish Makhija
Thank you sir, for the good wishes.
@v.c
Your suggestion may have solved many of the problems. But it doesnt go along with that innovativeness and tone of OLLO. Because OLLO almost went beyond the usual ‘cop chase good thief’ kind of story.
@ Kenny
I never contested the fact that OLLO did decent business. I have seen the figures that you quoted. The question remains why it didnt go beyond that figure while OLLO remains the most creative commercial movie of 2008.
@ papaji
I didnt suggest including a cop story. Infact I am against it. Mainly because it will pull OLLO down to the ordinary. The same reason why I dont want to see the revenge by Lucky.
Yes, when you think about it- it is more similar to Taxi driver than Goodfellas. Mainly in the sense that writer hides the direct thoughts and emotions of the protagonist. Lucky never talks seriously about his aspirations, disillusions and emotional turmoil. Goodfellas was more ‘on your face’ kind of exposition.
Regarding Johnny Gaddaar, I too liked it. But as I said, however cleverly executed something is, it is sometimes tough to completely shake off the limitations of the genre it adopted.
@ scriptlarva
i think ollo is similar to taxi driver when it comes to the central character and how he’s examined. but the story progression is very much like goodfellas. and yeah, there’s no narrator who explains lucky’s desires and feelings. but wouldn’t it have been a kick-ass and totally ridiculous homage if in the end the frame freezes on lucky and his voice goes “as far back as i can remember, i’ve always to be a respectable upper class izzatdaar crook”
Just reading the whole article teh thign that came to my mind is the last line on BO success…Well according to reports OLLO isn’t a dud..It didnot open well but went along sailing smoothly to becaome a average (or semi-hit which i am not sure)