A WHORY TALE
The sob story of a reluctant prostitute is hopelessly old-fashioned, but thatâs the least of its problems. Plus, a painful mix of chills and chuckles.
OCT 14, 2007 – IN THE INDIA OF THE SIXTIES, the song Laaga chunari mein daag would have reminded moviegoers of the film it was from, Dil Hi To Hai. It would have reminded them of Raj Kapoor clowning around in an all-too-obvious fake beard, pretending to be a classical singer on stage as he lip-synced in accordance with Manna Deyâs outstanding rendition. Today, though, you hear the phrase Laaga chunari mein daag, and your mind â thanks to years and years of television conditioning â instantly goes to a detergent commercial. You donât think song; you think jingle. You think the next line should go, âTo Surf Excel lagaao.â?
Itâs a whole new world out there â and if this sounds like a ridiculously obvious fact that no one should have to point out, especially in a review of a new film in the new millennium, I only wish our filmmakers in Mumbai realised this. But to label Pradeep Sarkarâs hopelessly outdated Laaga Chunari Mein Daag â the story of Vibha (Rani Mukerji), who turns to prostitution to take care of her family â as simply being out of touch with the times would be credit the film with the caveat that had it been made in, say, the sixties, people would have tearfully lapped it up.
And I doubt that Laaga Chunari Mein Daag would have worked in any era. For the lover of the old-style Hindi film, there just isnât enough thunder-and-lightning melodrama. (Itâs tempting to imagine what an unapologetically melodramatic filmmaker of today, a.k.a. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, would have made of this material.) As for the multiplex generation, how could anyone not hoot at this feature-length parade of impossibly glamorous stars in the prettiest of picture-postcard surroundings, desperately trying to sell a battered-woman subject based on a social reality?
Now, if youâre going to dish out the old suspension-of-disbelief rejoinder, that our cinema has never really sought to emulate kitchen-sink realism, allow me to reproduce what I wrote about Ta Ra Rum Pum, this yearâs other Yash Raj movie starring Rani Mukerji. (Hey, if theyâre going to recycle their heroines and their moviemaking strategies, why shouldnât I recycle my reviews?) âBut if thereâs one thing that is at odds with glitzy packaging, itâs poverty. I donât think there can be such a thing as suspension of disbelief when youâre trying to sell hard times, for poverty is all around us â thereâs nothing not to believe about it.â?
At one point, Vibha and her father (Anupam Kher) set out to pay a long-due electricity bill â their defaulting has resulted in the power being cut off â and nothing earlier clues you to this fact. The huge, ancient (and, okay, ramshackle) mansion they live in is so perpetually bathed in warm tones of yellows and ambers, the pangs you experience arenât of sympathy so much as envy. And though you see the mother (Jaya Bachchan, in the very definition of a thankless role) slaving away at her sewing machine, tailoring petticoats to bring in some income, the opening credits tell us that her daughters are draped in Sabyasachi Mukherjee creations.
And this is the poverty weâre supposed to buy as the reason for nice, middle-class Vibha turning into naughty, high-priced call-girl Natasha (in a series of fright wigs)? The old films at least had the decency to show us a younger sibling with a congenital limp, or a father whoâd lost his eyesight. Or a husband who made promises and never came back, leaving the poor girl all alone to raise an infant â as was the case in Ram Teri Ganga Maili, whose metaphorical trajectory Laaga Chunari Mein Daag reflects the most (even though the screenplay credit reveals that this is based on the Marathi film Doghi, which Iâve not seen but which appears to resemble the Mumtaz-vehicle Aaina, which K Balachander remade from his Tamil Arangetram).
In Raj Kapoorâs last outing as director â a rather underrated one, in my opinion; perhaps the noise over Mandakiniâs nipples eclipsed all other considerations about the film â the heroine was a virgin from the Himalayas (namely, the pristine birthplace of the Ganges) who ended up a whore in Kolkata (where the now-polluted Ganges empties into the sea), and her gradual lessening of purity (or virtue) was shown to parallel the riverâs. This metaphor is mirrored in the first song of Laaga Chunari Mein Daag â Shantanu Moitraâs perky Hum to aise hain bhaiya â where a beautifully shot montage shows sisters Vibha and Shubha (Konkona Sen Sharma) celebrating their vibrant hometown of Banaras, which, of course, is one of the most famous homes of the Ganges.
During this number, Vibha kneels on the last step of the ghat, dunks her hand in the river and sings, âSab ki ragon mein lahu bahe hain/ apni ragon mein Ganga maiya,â? that what courses through their veins isnât blood so much as the holy water of the Ganges, and you know at once what lies in store for this âpureâ? girl: a trek across impure terrain very similar to that of Mandakiniâs in Ram Teri Ganga Maili. (Here, she ends up in big, bad Mumbai). But Pradeep Sarkar doesnât have the conviction in his conceit that Raj Kapoor had, and so his âjourney of a womanâ? (as the filmâs tagline goes) appears merely an exotic holiday from which a safe return is all but guaranteed.
But the problem isnât just that Sarkar doesnât trust his tale; he doesnât trust his audience. You can hear the wheels go clackety-clack in his head: âOkay, so Iâve got this adult story about the elder sister that will probably attract those who liked my earlier Parineeta. But will todayâs kids want to watch it?â? And thatâs why, I guess, we donât see much of what Vibha actually goes through in her new life. Instead, after a point, we keep cutting away to the half-hearted romance between Shubha and Vivan (Kunal Kapoor), which is presented as a complete contrast to Vibhaâs (equally half-hearted) love story. Vibha and Shubha look like theyâre barely a few years apart, and yet, Vibhaâs meet-cute (with Abhishek Bachchan, in a cameo) happens as sheâs muttering the Hanuman Chaleesa, while Shubhaâs occurs as Vivan is chomping messily on a mayo-dripping burger. Really!
Itâs as if Sarkar found the hook of the story interesting, but then began to lose interest as he went about writing it. The early portions of Laaga Chunari Mein Daag do show signs of at least some level of engagement with the material. Sarkar takes the trouble to walk us through the whole cycle of incidents that results in Vibhaâs unfortunate choice of career â but while you note this detailing in the screenplay, it never becomes part of the story on screen in a way that sticks. Laaga Chunari Mein Daag is so broadly caricatured, itâs hard to take anything seriously, least of all the big-cities-are-evil thesis thatâs crucial to our empathising with Vibhaâs dilemma.
Sarkarâs idea of showing us how different Mumbai is from Banaras is to have her roommateâs male friend buzz the doorbell and cheerfully announce, âTumhari izzat lootne aaya hoon.â? (And what does this city-slicker have in his hands while disclosing this mock-intent of rape? Why, bottles of beer, of course! Alcohol! Hey Ram!) Vibha, on the other hand, remembers to buy for this roommate a pair of earrings the latter had casually admired while visiting Banaras, and even the roommate is surprised at this display of thoughtfulness. (Apparently, no one in Mumbai is into impromptu gestures of friendship, which makes you wonder how all those Archies and Hallmark stores are making any money.)
And once Vibha turns into Natasha, even these tiny niceties disappear, and the rest of Laaga Chunari Mein Daag becomes an interminable slog to an inevitable end, livened up solely by Konkonaâs half-incredulous glee in finding herself, finally, in a film where she actually gets to sing and dance. But then, she does have the advantage of having the screen all to herself, considering that no one around her is remotely as interesting. Poor Sushant Singh, for instance, is stuck with the dreadfully written character of Vibhaâs wastrel cousin from back home who blackmails her. (How does this yokel find out so much about Vibha, including how much she charges per night? Maybe itâs those killer private eyes in Banaras.)
To Sarkarâs credit, he does stage the occasional moment where you think you have it all figured out, and thatâs not really the case. When Vibha sees Shubha on Vivanâs motorbike, you gear up for the inevitable confrontation. You think Vibha will ask Shubha to not go around with strange men, and that Shubha will use this warning later (after she finds out that her elder sisterâs livelihood depends upon going out with strange men) to expose Vibhaâs hypocrisy. But, thankfully, no such thing happens. Shubha simply brings Vivan over; he whips up a delicious lunch, and Vibha is charmed.
But thereâs more to the scene. With all the close-ups of Vibha as she looks at Shubha and her boyfriend, you canât help picking up on an (invisible) undercurrent. Isnât there even the slightest bit of jealousy, of resentment? (After all, when Vibha came to Mumbai, all the men she met were pigs, and now hereâs her little sister, meeting a handsome, charming Mr. Right straightaway.) But Sarkar doesnât go there, because he needs his heroine to stay a saint. If Vibhaâs profession â all those anonymous men, all that meaningless sex, all that money â has taken a toll on her person, this isnât the film to offer evidence. Thatâs why Rani Mukerji, despite being in practically every frame, struggles to make an impression. Itâs a role thatâs all outline, with not a scratch of shading inside.
And itâs a role thatâs, frankly, quite fake. Thereâs a scene just after Shubha lands up in Mumbai, when she sights a group of prostitutes at a corner. She giggles and points them out to Vibha, who is by her side, and who, naturally, rebukes her. Vibha says that these women should not be judged, because you never know what caused them to end up in this profession. And while this instinctive response seems, at first, to arise from empathy for these others in her situation, thatâs only half the picture.
Because if you think about it, Vibha should have been one of them too. She barely knows any English (she mistakes âlingerieâ? for âlaundryâ?), and sheâs small-town in so many telling ways, and it makes sense that if she did wind up a hooker, sheâd be peddling her wares at nondescript street corners. The fact that she doesnât, that she morphs miraculously into a high-class call girl who services clients at ritzy hotels, is all you need to know about the filmmakerâs priorities. He wants to tackle a disturbing subject, and yet dress it up so that itâs least disturbing to his audience. With all the emphasis on eye candy, you wonder why they didnât name the film Laaga Pashmina Shawl Mein Daag.
WHEN MANICHITRATHAZHU WAS RELEASED in the early nineties, there was so much buzz about it and it became such a blockbuster, I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. But subtitles being an unknown phenomenon those days â unless the film showed up on Doordarshan on a Sunday afternoon â I never got around to the Malayalam film, and I never got around to Aaptamitra either, the Kannada version that got made over a decade later. Thatâs a long time to be simmering with curiosity about a movie, so when the same story found its way to Tamil, with Chandramukhi, I ran to the cinema hall. And my reaction was: Is that all?
And now, after watching the Hindi remake, Bhool Bhulaiyaa, my reaction is: Is that really all? I thought that with Priyadarshan behind the scenes, heâd strive to bring back all the things from the Malayalam original that had reportedly been jettisoned in the other versions. But some nice tunes from Pritam apart, Bhool Bhulaiyaa is such a mess of plotting and mood â it takes forever to take off, and once it does, it takes forever to end, and it canât decide whether to make you chuckle or chew your nails â I was left wondering: Is this a bad remake of a good original? Or is the original one of those films that worked at the time, but is dated now, and hence this is about all you could hope for from a remake?
These questions, at least, are far more interesting than the ones that Aditya (Akshay Kumar, doing what he reliably does in his Priyadarshan films) seeks the answers to. Is the palace inherited by Siddharth (Shiney Ahuja, looking completely lost) really haunted by the ghost of a long-ago raj nartaki whose love affair ended tragically (and who may have sat through a few too many screenings of Mehbooba, where Hema Malini played a long-ago raj nartaki whose love affair ended tragically)? And if thereâs a ghost, is it haunting anyone now â Siddharthâs wife Avni (Vidya Balan), perhaps? And, finally, can Priyadarshan ever make a movie without Akshay Kumar, Asrani, Paresh Rawal, Rasika Joshi, Rajpal Yadav and Manoj Joshi?
Copyright ©2007 The New Sunday Express
S
October 13, 2007
Hey Ram, You missed MANICHITRATHAZHU and caught the other 2?
I caught the original with the subtitles and there it was approached from both the angles(MPD & ghost). Yes, there is typical pace (or lack of) of malayalam cinema but that’s only for the first half. Shobana alone would make worth bearing those subtitles.
I did not catch the other 2.
Akshay kumar – suddenly rediff says akshay is part of top 5 stars, gets decent reviews(!!!!!) and have the pigs started flying as well?
LikeLike
vimal
October 13, 2007
Hi BR,
Priyan,as usual, has spoiled the original classic.Its a frame to frame copy of the original, but somehow the movie doesnt leave a remark at all or to say it doesnt punch u in the right scenes.The original if seen today is still a classic in terms of the overall presentation. It doesnt make u feel vexed at all and some scenes still thrill you even after repeated viewing.This is lacking here in the hindi version.The movie moves on a snails pace in the second half and the actors except vidya balan doesnt have any idea themselves as to what they are doing.
But one should appreciate the well taken shots and the stunning palace set by Sabu Cyril.The casting was good and no over the top perfomances from Rajpal and Paresh.Even Pritam has done a commendable job, especially with the song that appears at the climax(BTW, the whole flashback scene where the king cuts the head, etc, are borrowed from the tamil version and it wasnt there in the original).
When I saw Chandramukhi, I thought to myself,”Oh my God! How can they do this to Manichitrataazhu.Why did they rape the movie so badly?”. Although, that wasnt what I felt whie watching this version, but somehow I missed the original. I believe, some classics cannot be remade, however good or efficient the director is.
LikeLike
Mumbai Ramki
October 13, 2007
Its not that Im apart of DK’s Dravidian idealogy groups – but please review some Tamizh movies also 🙂
Just like Manirathnam you have drifted to Bollywood movies 🙂
LikeLike
Rohini Mohan
October 13, 2007
Manichitrathazhu is one of my favourite malayalam films… and I watch it once every few months. I don’t think it works because of the time it was released. It works because it doesn’t try too hard to preach/or make us laugh/scare us. It treats fear and superstition like we treat it… our logical mind questions it, but most of us are afraid to laugh it off. So we giggle at it.
The cast in malayalam was wonderful: not at all one-dimensional like in Bhool Bhulaiya. I haven’t ever been able to STAND that Mrs. Paresh Rawal, and the patriarch-who-yelled-far-too-much.
I didn’t compare Chandramukhi to Manichitrathazhu, because well, the plot was different and Rajni needs the grandiose touch. Bhool Bhulaiya was a Bollywoodised version (prettier, more palatial, more ornate, more extremely emotive). And perhaps that doesn’t always work with every plot.
At least they could’ve reconsidered the metallic ring in Manjulika’s voice. I couldn’t stop imagining the audio mixer trying too hard.
Watch Manichitrathazhu. You know tamil, it’s really not so hard then. Trust me, it’s nice to be reminded again how much subtlety can achieve.
LikeLike
Sreejith
October 13, 2007
Manichitrathazhu was one of those rare movies that staeds with you after you left the hall… but Priyadarshan had to ruin it. Even then, if Bhool Bhulayya had been cut down to 1.5/2 hours it would have been a much better product.
LikeLike
Charles Foster Kane
October 13, 2007
“…..though you see the mother (Jaya Bachchan, in the very definition of a thankless role) slaving away at her sewing machine, tailoring petticoats to bring in some income, the opening credits tell us that her daughters are draped in Sabyasachi Mukherjee creations….” Hahahahaha!!! :)) :)) :))
LikeLike
G
October 13, 2007
Re: LCMD, now THAT really is a beatiful review. I can see 10-15 year old Anglophiles all over Chennai taking you to be one of their gods. 🙂
LikeLike
Navin
October 13, 2007
Sathyam or Inox (language no bar), next time I’ll do the booking.
LikeLike
Anonymous
October 13, 2007
Thanks for saving my saturday…and a few dollars. What a pity that LCMD seems to be such a letdown. And as someone whose profession is all about films, you shouldn’t miss Manichitrathazhu..forget everything that came later..but do watch it.
LikeLike
Nithin
October 13, 2007
I assume you didn’t think much of Tamil MA. but u know what? I just loved it, inspite of not knowing the language..nt many tamil films hav dat audacity to be more universal or assimilative to others…i cant believe i liked a film without subtitles…although its anti-elitist message was over bound..it has some air of mystery abt it…
I saw BB today…its pathetic, and no patch on the original…u cud hav avoided reviewin’ these crappy films…actually tamil films r much much better in recent times.
LikeLike
Anonymous
October 13, 2007
@G…baradwaj is already a GOD. I get the NSE paper everyweek fr his articles..nw that i got net connection..it wud b more convenient. hehe
Nithin
LikeLike
Shankar
October 13, 2007
There’s only one way to find out if “Is this really all”…go watch Manichitrathazhu!! Sure, it came out in 1993 (which is 14 years ago) and hence it might not have the technical wizardry of today but the plot and the acting more than make up for it. I have to agree with everything that Rohini says…the movie doesn’t try too hard. It just poses various possibilities. Like I have said before, it was made for its target audience who can appreciate subtlety. The other versions wouldn’t have worked at all if they had tried staying true to the original. Besides, how else can P.Vasu claim this was his own story and it had no connection to the malayalam original (like he did before the release of Chandramukhi)? His reasoning was that he was remaking Chandramukhi from Aapatmithra!! That is creativity!! 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
October 13, 2007
S, vimal, Rohini, Sreejith, Anonymous: Thanks for all the dope about Manichitrathazhu. Guess I’ll have to lay hands on a DVD soon. But S, the pace isn’t a problem for me. In fact, I enjoy the stateliness with which these films move. Gives you time to soak things in.
Mumbai Ramki: I’ve seen nothing of note after Sivaji/Kireedam. Have been meaning to watch Kattradhu Thamizh, but just not getting the time.
Kane: Are those three distinct sets of double mouthed laughs? So you’re not of this earth? 🙂
G: 10-15-year olds? Awww, G, I’m not quite sure if this is a bouquet or a brickbat 🙂
Navin: Booking for what?
Nithin: Now you’ve increased my curiosity about the film. And no, I can’t “avoid” a film because it’s crappy – if it’s Hindi or English, I get to submit a review. If only I could choose the films I wish to write about 🙂
LikeLike
Charles Foster Kane
October 13, 2007
:D. Yes, you can call me “A Martian.” Jokes aside, the double-mouthed smileys are active in some other blogs. I didn’t know this wasn’t enabled here. It’s an LMAO smiley.
Cheers
LikeLike
Satyam
October 14, 2007
I had a different take on LCMD Baradwaj though I always have the greatest respect for your views:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/10/13/radically-progressive-in-laaga-chunari-mein-daag/
LikeLike
Virginia
October 14, 2007
Though I always start hunting from your reviews the minute a film releases, and almost always with gratitude find an opinion I agree with but could never write – there are a couple of things about the less-than-perfect LCMD where I’ve got such a different take!!!
Haven’t seen the antecendents or all the Indian stories about women who Lose Their Virtue under social pressure – but to me the fact that Rani’s character does not have a baby, paralyzed parents, etc is only a positive — she is presented as an agent, and not a reactor (I see that Satyam writes about all this but much more ably), and that in itself, in the representation of a woman in a movie, is to me progressive and important. She is a full adult.
Another progressive thing to me in this movie is – the parents are basically close to being jerks, and I don’t see people like this so much in Indian movies (I do see them elsewhere though!!)
Mother knows what her daughter is doing – she’s kind of sad about it, but not sad enough to, say, insist to Dad that he get a job, or that they unload the Ancestral Home to protect their daughter. I could have used the movie’s taking this a bit further, without making Jaya a caricature (and she is not one in any case, she has conflicts and is weak), but it does let us see the important thing – the parents fail the woman, other things are more important to them than protecting her, and where feminist themes are concerned, this one has run along like a toxic underground river forever, so I’m glad to find it showing up even to this extent here.
Also — I don’t mean to unload this all on you, your comments just stimulated my thinking – but I don’t at all agree in thinking Rani’s character should or would have been jealous/resentful of her sister’s “normal” romantic life. As a woman, I’m almost always angry and sad when men write stories about women being catty, envious, or spoiling with each other. There’s another big feminist thing here, not the place for it, so I’ll just say — for women who are neither made up nor controlled by men, I don’t think anger and meanness about their sisters’ happiness is so inevitable a response. In a story about a self-defining woman, I think Rani reacts exactly as I’d expect her to.
LikeLike
brangan
October 14, 2007
Satyam: That’s a very intriguing take on the film. Thanks.
Virginia: It would be very odd indeed if you *never* found anything to disgree with in my reviews, so I’m glad LCMD made you speak up.
1. “the fact that Rani’s character does not have a baby, paralyzed parents, etc is only a positive — she is presented as an agent, and not a reactor.” But she does have a poverty-stricken family she has to support – a father who needs oxygen tanks, a sister who needs to complete her education. And her taking up prostitution is in “reaction” to these situations, so I would still think she’s a reactor, not an agent. (Perhaps these aren’t as melodramatic as a blind father or a wailing infant, but they are causes nonetheless.) Maybe Rekha in Aastha would fit your description better.
2. I agree with you about parents failing the woman, but I found this theme buried under all the feel-good aspects of the film. I was looking for a little more from Jaya’s character.
3. And I didn’t mean it to come out that way, my remark about Rani’s jealousy/resentment aboiut Konkona’s. I didn’t mean it as a sweeping generalisation about women; just that most of us, at times, grapple with contrdictory feelings at times. It could even be the case with two brothers, where one has come up the hard way and the other has just found things easy. The jealousy/resentment isn’t the dominant emotion, but behind all the love and affection, it could be a recessive one – one that could add an interesting shade of gray to a character who’s being presented as all good. Hence that observation.
LikeLike
tenzin
October 14, 2007
I enjoyed Lagaa, some of the liberties taken were pretty sweeping, but the movie flowed for me. Didn’t you think Konkona was just pitch-perfect?.. she is such a treat to watch. Also hoping to see more of Kunal Kapoor. He feels fresh.
I don’t do a good job anyways in spotting the sub-texts and implications of a movie, so I will just say the movie wasn’t as jarring (could have done away with all that rona-dhona) and as boring as it’s being called in the media. Chalo yaar, thora to relax kar ke enjoy karo.
LikeLike
Virginia
October 14, 2007
re: 2 – I definitely agree that the possibility of “shades of gray” were presented and not developed — I give Sarkar credit for having Jaya more or less tell her daughter to go have sex with men for money, and then kind of (only)regret it. And I am sorry nobody in the movie said to Jaya – hey, why don’t you move out of that place/rent it out/whatever — or some better way to make this theme “louder” and still compatible with the style of story-telling of the movie.
Re: rona dhona I agree with Tenzin, I remember at the time wishing they’d snip out the whole scene in which all family members sob and apologize to each other – or at least add something acerbic to it!! as is often the case with the weep-fest, it was the place in the movie of greatest emotional detachment for me.
re: 3 – agree that we are likely to feel something along with happiness for the other person (sister or any) when life has given her something we desire that is out of our reach — but I’d still be sorry to see a woman portrayed, in a movie attempting this story’s kind of theme, in a way that could look catty/bitchy/name-your-lower-life-form-y. Sadness, longing, grief about what seems to be lost forever, those would be more okay with me.
Again – because – to me – the theme of women hating other women, reacting with the kind of envy that looks to hurt the other person — is so often a feature of the anti-feminist worldview that I would not like to see it in a movie written, as are most Bollywood movies still, in broad/near-melodramatic, near-archetypal strokes.
I am sure this isn’t news to people who grew up with these movies, but a westerner notices at some point that the women almost never have real friends, just girls they squeal and giggle with in the “innocent” part of their lives. So to me it’s good to see Rani being a real and loving friend to her sister.
LikeLike
Srikanth.G
October 15, 2007
Hello Sir,
I read all your reviews regularly but this is the first time I am posting my comments and it is regarding Bhool Bhulaiyya.
The first and most important thing that I want to stress about MANICHITRATHAZHU is that it is a classic and that it should have never been remade as it has been done now by priyadarshan. It comprised of powerhouse performances by Mohanlal and by Shobhana, who even overshadowed Mohanlal.
I agree completely with your review of Bhool Bhulaiyya as the promos were really exciting. I love Shiney Ahuja and before going to the movie I really thought that Priyadarshan had a good casting done but I was terribly dissappointed with his overacting and shouting (his counterpart in Manichitathazhu, Suresh Gopi, did a commendable job, apart from his normal shouting and violent dialogues seen in his other films).
I haven’t seen Chandramukhi nor the kannada copy and that’s why i dont have any comments on that. So, I would like to confirm that please dont have any doubts about the class of the malayalm original. Each dialogue of the movie and the superb music even HAUNTS till now, if you hear it…. that makes it different… because an original is, after all, an original…
LikeLike
nitin churiwal
October 15, 2007
the actress vidya has done a good job!
LikeLike
Shuchi
October 15, 2007
After LCMD I came out of the theatre in absolute agreement with your opinion of the movie. Now, having read Satyam’s and Virginia’s views I am totally confused 😀 I’ll say, I found the movie unconvincing but I did not get bored watching it.
“for women who are neither made up nor controlled by men, I don’t think anger and meanness about their sisters’ happiness is so inevitable a response” – lovely words, Virginia.
The song lyrics were great, no?
LikeLike
G@|\|E$#
October 15, 2007
Review of Katrathu Thamizh plz… would love to see your take on it
LikeLike
G
October 15, 2007
Lots of heavy duty analysis being put up, so to skim right past that,
I don’t know why you are looking at my statement with such ambiguity. 🙂
“anonymous” got what I was saying afer all.
Kids ARE looking at you in the exact same way that (for instance) I used to look at William Safire or Nirmal Shekhar.
Which reminds me, time to re-acquaint myself with Safire after some 15 long years. 🙂
LikeLike
DPac
October 15, 2007
Really Rangan,
dont go looking for that dvd with too much expectations..
they are bound to go up in flames…
its a proper masala movie with some quite remarkable songs..
that said, yeah it sure is the best among the ‘re-makes’..
a friends of mine called priyadarshan to showcase his very original script.
‘priyan sir does not do original stories anymore’ – said the secretary…
at least I for one hoped he would put some effort into remaking one successful original which even he had a hand in making.. (priyan was second -unit- director for Manichitrathaazhu
LikeLike
raj
October 15, 2007
Why is Priyadarshan going about claiming he made Manichitrathaqzhu?Wasnt it Fazil whp made that movie?
And whole of India is swallowing Priyadarshan’s claim? The nerve of this cheat!
LikeLike
raj
October 15, 2007
`right – DPac answered that one but the way Priyan has been harping in interviews about him directing the original, you wouldnt believe he was the second unit director? If I didnt know about Fazil, I would have thought it was Priyan’s baby reading his recent interviews!
LikeLike
Arvind
October 15, 2007
Manichitrathazhu is not wonderful cinema but it’s far, far more watchable than this turgid remake on account of the performances (Mohanlal over Akshay, Shobhana over Vidya Balan and hell, even Suresh Gopi scores over Shiney) and surprisingly even the production values. The malayalam original managed to scare because of the camerawork and the creepy palace where it was shot. Here, priyan has just added a bunch of boo-moments and terribly out-of-place songs.
LikeLike
munimma
October 16, 2007
aracha maava, arachu arachu, vazha vazha kozha kozhannu adayalam theriyama pona mathiri thaan – manichitrathazhu – a half-way decent movie pulverized beyond recognition. I liked the music in both these movies. May be I should stop there and move over to meaningless comedies like dhamaal and buddha mar gaya. At least I can have a few laughs.
Did Vidya B dance classical? That might be my only reason to watch.
LikeLike
rads
October 16, 2007
Thank you! Now I don’t have to watch these 2 movies, or crib that I did or didn’t.
LikeLike
brangan
October 16, 2007
tenzin: “Didn’t you think Konkona was just pitch-perfect?” Not exactly. I thought she was trying too hard in the song sequences. But overall, quite good. I think the girl is incapable of a lousy performance.
Srikanth, DPac, Arvind, munimma: Wow, more exhortations to catch Manichitrathazhu. I really should one of these days.
nitin: I thought she was okay – though with all the footage devoted to Akshay, the fact that she stood out to the extent she did is in itself some sort of achievement.
Shuchi: “but I did not get bored watching it.” That’s exactly it. LCMD was well-cradfted and it had an easy flow to it, and that’s what made me feel worse – that a filmmaker with all these talents chose to bury himself in this kind of a “compromised” story. It’s far easier to dismiss LCMD had it been made by, say, Suneel Darshan. The fact that it had Pradeep Sarkar behind the camera makes the disappointment greater.
G@|\|E$#: Let’s see… I’ll try to catch it soon.
G: Okay, then. In that case, thank you kindly 🙂
raj: Did Priyadarshan really do that?
rads: Don’t dismiss LCMD yet. Look at the angst Shuchi is going through after reading those others POVs 🙂
LikeLike
raj
October 17, 2007
br , yes Priyan did. There’s one he did for rediff that should be easy to locate, though I am too lazy to do it for you :-).
I think a sizeable chunk of North India now thinks Manichitrathazhu was the lousy original of lousy BhBh 🙂 . Well, infact, didnt you veer towards such a view until people here pointed out otherwise?
If *YOU* can be fooled, I suppose no wonder someone like P.Darshan is a successful film maker – and it also probably speaks a lot about Bollywood, its audience and theirlack of awareness of good cinema.
LikeLike
Indraneel
October 17, 2007
I look at LCMD a wee bit differently. Beyond all the gloss and mush there was this very contemporary story..kind of thing that is happening in North India now..every day..
1. Parents willingly leave their daughters to eke out for themselves under the convenient term – Poverty..and girls willingly take up Prostitution / bar dancing / Orchestra dancing..highly prevalent in Eastern UP and Bihar. They do not mind their income as long as they do not get back to staying with the parents
2. The girls are very profane and matter of fact about what they do..Rani could not get this right or the script did not dig deep enough
3. The shame is not there..same as shown in the movie but since the gloss had come in, this became a little implausible
Fact is- if this movie could have been a gritty realistic Chandni Bar kind of cinema..we would have been raving about this now…it actually identified well then!!
LikeLike
brangan
October 18, 2007
raj: I just haven’t seen the Mal. version but I did know fazil had made it. Man, you see conspiracy everywhere 🙂
Indraneel: Those are some nice viewpoints. Thanks. But what is “orchestra dancing?”
LikeLike
Shankar
October 19, 2007
Apologies for harping on the same beaten-to-death issue, but here is an excerpt of Sudhish Kamat’s review of BB from The Hindu
“Where Bhool Bhulaiyaa fails and Manichitrathazhu scores, is in the filmmaker’s ability (or inability, in this case) to set up a face-off between science and superstition. Fazil played a gripping mind-game keeping us guessing on what was causing all hell to break loose – was it really the ghost or was it someone with a dissociative identity disorder? There were many cues thrown around in Manichitrathazhu, some to mislead, some to distract and some to hint and help you participate in the guessing game.
For all his claim to have worked on the film, Priyadarshan doesn’t even seem to have got hold of the basic idea behind the film: a science-meets-superstition-based-thriller where parapsychology and exorcism flow seamlessly into the narrative. While we can understand P.Vasu’s commercial considerations that made him ignore these finer aspects and just dumb it down as a Superstar film for the masses, Priyadarshan’s claim of being faithful to the original is unreal, just like the film he has made.
Bhool Bhulaiyaa is yet another example of a classic lost in translation.”
LikeLike
E Pradeep
October 19, 2007
Manichitrathazhu was a classic in its genre, not by itself maybe. It managed to marry psychology and faith (superstition is a subjective word) and sustained the interests of different kinds of audience. It is not outdated and still remains a good original which can stand on its own. Priyan’s just done a Copy-Paste of Fazil’s movie without brniging any life into it. Pity the filmmaker and the audience!!!
LikeLike
oops
October 20, 2007
I finally watched Laaga Chunari Mein Daag, and i agree with satyam and Indraneel point of view. I mean, as a woman it’s difficult for me and for the society (can be occidental, can be indian) to agree that sometimes prostitution is a choice. Even if it’s a choice driven by necessity, rani’s character says that a “choice” has been made. She could get an other job, but selling her body was the fastest way to get money. And she did it.
Now what’s the problem with that kind of situation ? There’s no pimp. Rani is not threaten by anyone to sleep with men. There is no situation of slavery. So what should we think of that girl ? Is she a whore because in our mind (men/women’s mind), a girl who sleeps around is considered that way ? Worst if she’s paid for it ? Or is she a victim ? However, Rani refuses to be considered so. She becomes the man that her father desperately wants. She bears all the sacrifice to be that Strong son in the house, that missing strong man. She pays the price (and mother pay the bill with it).
But because she’s the one to suffer for her own choice, she shouldn’t be the only one to be condemned. You can do it with anything else but prostitution. And that’s why we don’t know what to think about that phenomenon : in some countries, it’s a legal work. In others, thinking of it as a real job is very regressive and unbearable for women. Because it deals with us, with the human body, our values and its (“market”) value. Because in our societies, in our very own 21st century the human body is still something you can sell, or you can pay for. Laws of Offer and Request (or demand, i don’t know what is the word). And these considerations are not something from the past, for the poor and illeterate people etc… .
Just the fact that Laaga Chunari Mein Daag can inspire this kind of question makes it an interesting movie, even if the demonstration is not always good (to much gloss, happy ending, Abhishek Bachchan wasting his precious time and talent in a useless guest appearance etc…)
That’s how i understand the movie (and i think the other writers translate my thoughs in better english)
IMHO
Peace 🙂
LikeLike
G
October 22, 2007
Wow, the one time I feel Rangan has watched the movie for me, people come right out and show me that like any other movie, one has to make up one’s own mind by seeing the movie. 🙂
LikeLike
Anon
October 25, 2007
Manichitrathaazh’s strength lay in perfect dancing and subtle acting. The innocent character Ganga portrayed by Shobana had a psychic-vibe-medical-problem (juxtaposed against the supernatural, rather naturally). Chandramukhi’s Chandramukhi was shamelessly essayed by a classical-dancer-complement and was shown as having rabid madness and roving eyes. Here the mischief maker was just a mad mad woman and it was plain for all to see. Mohanlal, despite being a superstar of his own right, down-pedalled his character to make Ganga the highlight. Rajnikant is too poor an axcuse for the Tamil “version” to be so bizarre. As someone who watched the original first, I had to watch the movie 2/3 times to actually believe what was unfolding on screen.
I’ve stopped watching Bollywood these days. Having fashion designers design costumes is taking a heavy toll on realism. Plus, all movies can be typecast in two ways by mere nature of handling – Parineeta-type amber-red antique and sober lighting, or Salaam Namasthe-type pink-blue youthful chirpiness – sick!
LikeLike
Shankar
February 15, 2008
I just had to post this 🙂
http://varnachitram.com/2008/02/13/oru-murai-vanthu-parthayo/
LikeLike
nitin
May 10, 2008
i too agree wid shuchi
LikeLike
Henrik
July 19, 2009
Thanks for your interesting reviews which always show me new aspects of movies i already saw.
LikeLike
burcidibollyreview
April 4, 2014
Manichitrathazhu never gets old. The remakes are not even worth it.. And now there is a spin off “Geethanjali”…. but nothing compares to Manichitrathazhu
LikeLike